Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Home Depot Draft Focused EIR 01-2006
! ~ u L Di~AFT ~. FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ~; State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-08-2032 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY JANUARY 2006 ~~rorm,~tal ~acumait CaN~tc~ors; CASE P~0• a-re c,RCUUTED: OMTE REOOM~,IDED: QATE APPRpvEp. DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-08-2032 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT P RO) ECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY JANUARY 2006 CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 EIR Review Process .........................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Content and Organization of the EIR ...........................................................................................................................1-2 2. EXECUTIVE $UMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Proposed Project ..............................................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Project Location and Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Required Approvals .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-6 4. AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Air Quality Data ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-3 5. GEOLOGY AND $OILS ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 5-11 6. HA?ARIIOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................6-2 6.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 6-9 7. HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................7-1 7.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 7-5 7.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 7-10 8. LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 8-2 9. NOISE ................................................................................................................................ 9-1 9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Setting .................................................................................................................................................................................9-4 9.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 9-5 10. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................. 10-1 10.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................10-1 10.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................10-2 11. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................................................11-1 11.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................11-1 11.2 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................11-2 11.3 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................................11-55 12. UTILITIES ........................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................................................................12-1 12.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................12-3 13. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................13-1 13.2 Altematives Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................13-1 13.3 Alternatives Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................13-2 14. IMPACT OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................14-1 14.1 Significant & Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant ..................14-1 14.2 Impacts Determined not to be Significant ................................................................................................................14-4 14.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ......................................................................................................14-5 14.4 Growth Inducing Impacts ...........................................................................................................................................14-7 14.5 Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................................................................14-7 LS. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 15-1 15.1 Report Preparers ...........................................................................................................................................................15-1 15.2 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................................15-1 16. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 16-1 A: Notice of Preparation and Comments on Notice of Preparation ............................................................................... A-1 B: Traffic Tables and Equations ........................................................................................................................................... B-1 C: Air Quality Model Output, Emissions Procedures and Calculations ......................................................................... C-1 FIGURES 3-1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................3-3 3-2 Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................. ....3-7 5-1A Geologic Map ................................................................................................................................................................ ....5-5 5-1B Geologic Units and Symbols ....................................................................................................................................... .... 5-7 7-1 Existing Drainage Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... ....7-3 7-2 FEMA Flood Zones Map ............................................................................................................................................. ....7-7 7-3 Post-Development Drainage Conditions .................................................................................................................... ..7-13 11-1 Area Map ......................................................................................................................................................................... ..11-3 11-2 Locations of Intersections, Freeway Ramp, and Mainline Freeway Analysis ........................................................ ..11-7 11-3 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes ............................................................................................................................... ..11-9 11-4 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ............................................................................................................................... 11-11 11-5 Existing Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control ................................................................................................ 11-13 11-6 Year 2006 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control ............................................................................................. 11-31 11-7 Year 2020 Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control ............................................................................................. 11-33 11-8 2006 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................... 11-41 11-9 2006 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................... 11-43 11-10 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ......................................................................... 11-51 11-11 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................... 11-53 i1-12 2006 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................................ 11-59 11-13 2006 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................................ 11-61 11-14 Year 2020 (With Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................................. 11-63 11-15 Year 2020 (With Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................................. 11-65 TABLES 2-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................2-2 4-1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 2000-2004 ..................................................... ....4-3 4-2 Predicted 8-Hour Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Levels ......................................................................................... ....4-9 4-3 Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions ..................................................................................................................... ..4-10 7-1 Existing and Proposed Drainage Conditions for the 10-Year Design Storm ....................................................... ..7-11 7-2 Potential Pollutants from Industrial Activities ........................................................................................................... ..7-16 7-3 Impervious vs. Pervious Surface Areas ....................................................................................................................... ..7-18 9-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms ..................................................................................................................................... ....9-2 9-2 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry .......................................................................... ....9-3 11-1 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................ 11-16 11-2 Intersection Level of service PM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................. 11-17 11-3 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................................ 11-19 11-4 Freeway Operation PM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................................. 11-20 11-5 Existing, Year 2010 Base Case and Base Case + Project Freeway Ramp Operation AM/PM Peak Hour....... 11-22 11-6 Existing, Year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + Project Freeway Ramp Operation AM/PM Peak Hour....... 11-23 11-7 Vehicle Queuing with Oyster Point Interchange, 50~ Percentile, AM Peak Hour ............................................... 11-25 11-8 Vehicle Queuing with Oyster Point Interchange, 50~ Percentile, PM Peak Hour ............................................... 11-26 11-9 Vehicle Queuing with Oyster Point Interchange, 95~ Percentile, AM Peak Hour ............................................... 11-27 11-10 Vehicle Queuing with Oyster Point Interchange, 95a' Percentile, PM Peak Hour .............................................. 11-28 11-11 Trip Generation of Approved East of 101 Area Development Expected to be Occupied by 2006 ............... 11-36 11-12A Lowe's Site Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................... 11-37 11-12B Lowe's Site Net Change in Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 11-37 11-13 Remaining Terra Bay Phase 2 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................ 11-38 11-14 Traffic Distribution, Office/Research and Development ...................................................................................... 11-40 11-15A Home Depot Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................ 11-57 11-15B Home Depot Net Change in Near Term Horizon Trip Generation ................................................................. 11-57 11-15C Home Depot Net Change in Year 2020 Trip Generation .................................................................................. 11-57 ~I INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, requires EIRs to be prepared for all Projects which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA Guidelines, are "... to identify the significant effects of a Project on the environment, to identify alternatives to a Project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." The information contained in this Focused EIR is intended to be objective and impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed Home Depot Project. 1.2 EIR REVIEW PROCESS This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens to evaluate the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept of the proposed Project. In accordance with California law, the EIR on the Project must be certified before any action on the Project can be taken by the South San Francisco City Council. During the review period for this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies may offer their comments on its evaluation of Project impacts and alternatives. The comments received during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these comments. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR (including the response to comments) together will constitute the EIR for the Project. The South San Francisco City Council will review the EIR documents, and will determine whether or not the EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of the Project and its alternatives. In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with property acquisition, as well as the potential future environmental impacts associated with the Home Depot Project. Readers are also encouraged to review and comment on ways in which significant impacts associated with this Project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit data or references in support of their comments. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from January 31, 2006 to March 17, 2006. Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, Ca. 94083 Please contact Steve Carlson at 650-877-8535 if you have any questions. After reviewing the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, and following action to certify the EIR as adequate and complete, the South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to approve the Project as currently proposed, revise the Project prior to approval, or reject the Project. This determination will be based upon information presented on the entirety of the Project, its impacts and probable consequences, and the possible alternatives and mitigation measures available. 1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR Following this brief description of the Home Depot Project Focused EIR, the document's ensuing chapters include the following: • Chapter 2: Executive Summary • Chapter 3: Project Description • Chapter 4: Air Quality • Chapter 5: Geology and Soils • Chapter 6: Hazardous Materials • Chapter 7: Hydrology • Chapter 8: Land Use • Chapter 9: Noise • Chapter 10: Public Services • Chapter 11: Transportation and Circulation • Chapter 12: Utilities • Chapter 13: Alternatives • Chapter 14: Impact Overview • Chapter 15: References • Chapter 16: Appendices In Chapters 4 through 12 existing conditions are discussed in the Setting, followed by an evaluation of potentially significant impacts that may be associated with the Project. PAGE 1-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The Project consists of the demolition of an existing 156,637 square foot Levitz Furniture building and the construction of a 101,272 square foot Home Depot home improvement warehouse, an adjoining 24,522 square foot Garden Center, and atwo-level parking structure providing 426 parking spaces on a 7.62 acre parcel. 2.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The analyses in Chapters 4 through 12 of this document provide a description of the existing setting, potential impacts of Project implementation, and recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of Project implementation. The following table lists a summary statement of each impact and corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the level of significance after mitigation. Significant impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures, or alternatives, or a finding by the Lead Agency that the measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some of the significant impacts, mitigation measures may not be effective in reducing the impacts to a less than significant level. These impacts are designated significant and unavoidable. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Air Quality Impact 4-1: Implementation of TCMs. Mitigation Measure 4-1: Transportation Demand Less than Determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan Management Program. The Project will be required significant involves assessing whether Transportation Control to develop a Transportation Demand Management Measures (TCMs) aze implemented. The (TDM) plan since it would generate more than 100 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies seven new vehicle trips per day (approximately 185 new TCMs (TCM numbers 1, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20) trips during the AM peak hour and 350 new trips that Cities and Counties aze identified among the during the PM peak hour, per Table 11-15B), which is implementing agencies. At the Project level, the a significant impact (Impact I1-1). The TDM plan City along with the Project applicant will be shall include the following components so that the required to implement the following TCMs: Project would reasonably implement applicable TCMs: TCM#1 Support Voluntary Employer- Based Trip Reduction Programs 1. TDM#1 - Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. There are currently TCM#9 Improve Bicycle Access and shuttles that serve employers in the area. Facilities The Project shall become a sponsoring employer so that shuttles will serve the site, TCM#12 Improve Arterial Traffic providing employees an alternative mode of Management commuting. TCM#19 Pedestrian Travel 2. TDM#9 -Provide bicycle amenities so that employees and customers can bicycle to the The Project does not include specific measures that Project. Such amenities shall include safe aze consistent with applicable TCMs identified in onsite bicycle access and convenient storage the Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially (bike racks). Amenities for employees shall significant impact. include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities. 3. TDM#12 -The Applicant and City shall improve traffic operations at intersections serving the Project that are predicted to operate at congested levels. Such improvements shall include lane striping, signal timing adjustments, and additional turn lane capacity. 4. TDM#19 - The Project may include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe and convenient access to the Project and any shuttle or future bus stops that serves the Project (see TCM#1 above). The Final TDM Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) and the City's Chief Planner. PAGE 2-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance With the implementation of appropriate TCMs, impacts related to consistency with the Clean Air Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 4-2: Construction Dust. Construction Mitigation Measute 4-2: Dust Suppression Less than activity involves a high potential for the emission procedures. The following measures shall be significant of air pollutants. Construction activities would included in construction contracts to control fugitive generate exhaust emissions from vehicles and dust emissions during construction. equipment and fugitive pazticulate matter emissions that would adversely affect local air quality. This • Water all active construction areas at least would be a potentially signifzcant impact. twice daily. Construction activities would temporarily affect • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, local air quality, causing a temporary increase in sand or other materials that can be blown pazticulate dust and other pollutants. Dust by the wind. emission during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and properties. This impact is potentially .riguifzcaut, but other loose materials or require all trucks to normally mitigatible. maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking azeas and staging azeas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is cazried onto adjacent public streets. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~o. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a construction plan that includes measures to reduce air quality impacts and documentation that the BAAQMD has issued a permit. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official and City Engineer. Implementation of construction controls will reduce air pollutant emissions associated with construction activities to a level less than signiftcant. Geology a~ad Soils Impact 5-1: Seismic Ground Shalung. There is a Mitigation Measure 5-la: Compliance with Less than high probability that the proposed development Uniform Building Code and California Building Significant would be subjected to strong to violent ground Code. Project development shall meet requirements HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance shaking from an earthquake during its design life. of the California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001 Strong seismic ground shaking is considered a Edition, including the California Building Standazds, potentially significant impact. 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standazds will reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazazd of seismically induced ground shaking. Mitigation Measure 5-lb: Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic pazameters as outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report and from the California Building Code. The City's Chief Building Official may require a Final Geotechnical Engineering Report. The applicant's plans shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official. Mitigation Measure 5-lc: Obtain a Building Permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of the proposed buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. In accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, the proposed buildings and structures shall be designed to be resistant to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Conformity with these mitigation measures will reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground shaking to a level less than significant. PAGE 2-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact 5-2: Liquefaction, Dynamic Densification, and Differential Settlement. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation by Twining Laboratories concluded that site soils aze not likely to be subject to the affects of liquefaction such as sand boils and bearing capacity loss. Dynamic densification of dry surface soils is anticipated to result in up to 0.33 inches of seismically induced settlement. The dynamic densification may result in differential settlements of 0.167 inches over a distance of 50 feet. The anticipated dynamic densification and differential settlement, which could result in moderate structural damage without mitigation, is considered a potentially signifzcant impact. Impact 5-3: Unstable Soils. Potentially compressible soils aze present neaz the anticipated depths of the foundations for the proposed building. Loose soils will be generated as a result of the removal of existing improvements. Fill soils of unknown quality are present in the proposed building and parking areas. Near surface soils have a high potential for expansion and contraction during seasonal moisture fluctuations. The near surface soils are also corrosive in nature and may affect concrete and steel placed in contact with them. Groundwater is present at shallow depths, Mitigation Measure 5-2a: Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. The foundation shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. All buildings and structures shall be designed to minimize the affects of the anticipated seismic settlements. The report and recommendations shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Building Official. Mitigation Measure 5-2b: Obtain a Building Permit and complete final construction design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a Building Pemut from the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Construction Design Review of the proposed buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed Structural Engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall be designed to be resistant to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. All plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Chief Building Official. Conformity with these mitigation measures will reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground shaking to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5-3: Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories. The Geotechnical consultant recommended remedial grading during site construction actinides to provide foundation support for the proposed structure, dewatering for deeper excavations, and repair and maintenance for the existing slope. As recommended in the Preliminary Report, additional subsurface investigation shall be performed as necessary to fully delineate any areas of potentially unstable soils, such Less than Significant Less than Significant HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-5 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance less than 10 feet below ground surface, and could impact excavations such as utility trenches. The slope at the southeastern property boundary may be destabilized during site grading activities. This is a potentially significant impact. Impact 5-4: Expansive Soils. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, potentially expansive clay soils were encountered. Expansive clay soils may shrink and swell, resulting in damaged foundations, concrete slabs, pavements and other improvements. This is a potentially signifzcant impact. as under the existing building, which were not investigated during the Preliminary Investigation The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review all project plans and shall make supplemental recommendations as necessary to stabilize potentially unstable soils. All site prepazation and grading, foundations, pavement section construction and subsurface draining measures shall be performed under the observations and testing of the Project Geotechnical Engineer or his/her representative. In accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan, any new slopes greater than 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing fill material, shall be designed by a Geotechnical Engineer and have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. All site preparation and grading shall be performed in accordance with recommendation of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and a Grading Plan reviewed and approved by City of South San Francisco Building Official. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of unstable or potentially unstable soils to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5-4: Design and Construction in Accordance with Geotechnical Investigation. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommended mitigation measures for expansive clay soils. The Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation shall identify the measures to be used to prevent damage to site improvements by expansive soils and the project plans shall incorporate the recommendations. Potential measures for control of expansive clay soils may include the following. a) Replacing clayey soils underlying foundations and concrete slabs with select non-expansive structural fill. Recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer for the depth of fill and specifications for the fill material shall be implemented. b) Treating site soils with lime to reduce the expansion potential and increase the strength. Testing shall be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer to establish the required concentration of lime in the soil to reduce soil expansion to an acceptable level. Grade azound structures to assure positive drainage Less than Significant PAGE 2-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAfT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts I Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance away from structures. d) Implement recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer to prevent or minimise the potential for structural damage from expansive clay soils. All grading and improvement plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Building Official. Implementation of the above mitigation measure will reduce the impact of potentially expansive soils to a level less than significant. Impact 5-5: Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive azea near the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and pavements would expose underlying soil to the elements. Excavation of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of new soil will be created. Soils exposed during site grading would be subject to erosion during storm events. Soils exposed on the existing slope located at the eastern edge of the site are also subject to soil erosion and show evidence of erosion. Grading will disturb site soils that may potentially lead to impacts to the San Francisco Mitigation Measure 5-5a: Erosion Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include winterization, dust control, erosion control and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standazds for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include but not be limited to, locations of vehicle and equipment rooms, mobilization areas, and Less than Significant Bay. This would be a potentially signifzcant staging, portable rest Impact during and following site construction I planned access routes. activities. Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's Erosion Control Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and City Engineer. The City of South San Francisco Department of Public Works staff and/or representatives shall be required to inspect the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the SSFMC Grading Ordinance and approved plans, and require that the project applicant immediately correct any violations. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance ~xardaua Materials Mitigation Measure 5-5b: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a SWPPP prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific Best Management Practices to reduce and/or eliminate soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWG. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's SWPPP shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the project's impact to a level of less than significant. ~ F Impact 6-1: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed Home Depot complex, including pazking, warehousing, delivery, and shopping facilities is designed for commercial retail use. Retail sales items includes many potentially hazardous products, including paints, thinners, solvents, preservatives, and large potentially flammable items, such as lumber. These items will be routinely delivered to the facility, transported to and from the site by consumers (generally in small quantities), and when not sold or wazehoused must be transported from the site for disposal or return to the manufacturer. Transport will be concentrated along Dubuque Avenue and onto the Bayshore Freeway. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially signiftcant impact. Mitigation Measure 6-la: Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. In accordance with State law and local regulations, businesses occupying the development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The HMBP must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazazdous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities aze 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Retail establishments, such as Home Depot, are required by State law to report non-retail chemical storage of hazardous materials. Hazaddous materials may include paints, solvents, batteries, aerosol cans, compresses gas rylinders, asbestos containing materials, silica gels, lubricating oils, and fuels used to power generators and other mechanical equipment, as well as any other chemicals considered hazardous by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Less than Significant PAGE 2-8 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Department, California State Departrnent of Toxic Substances Control, and other applicable regulators. Home Depot is also responsible for reporting "off spec" materials. These aze materials that were not sold and are not able to be returned to the manufacturer. Home Depot is responsible for the safe disposal of these materials, which shall be additionally reported and included in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit an HMBP prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire HMBP at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes include updating the emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazazdous materials storage and/or changes in location of hazazdous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Depaztment's Business Plan Program. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) is required to inspect the business annually to make sure that the HMBP is complete and accurate. Prior to the final inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the County approved HMBP to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. Mitigation Measure 6-1b: Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances, and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazazdous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Tide 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placazds, signs and other identifying information. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the Project's impact to a level less than signifzcant. Impact 6-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 6-2a: Demolition Plan and Less than Release. Mitigations for accidental release of Permitting. Prior to demolition of any buildings or Significant hazazdous materials during construction are structures the applicant shall obtain a Demolition included in Mitigation Measure 7-2a, Permit from the City of South San Francisco Building implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Division. The Demolition Plan shall include measures Prevention Plan (SWPPP), presented in the ensuring safe demolition of existing buildings and HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-9 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance hydrology section of this Draft Environmental Impact Report. This mitigation includes implementation of Best Management Practices for preventing the discharge of construction-related pollutants such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, paint, concrete, etc. to the environment. However, these measures provide no mitigation for the accidental release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing facilities. Hazardous materials that may be present at the site include asbestos containing building materials and possible lead based paint. Demolition presents a primary hazazd to workers through inhalation of dust, dermal absorption, and ingestion of hazazdous materials. Following the completion of construction; wazehousing, transport, and vending operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of potentially hazardous materials. The greatest risk is likely from a spill into the storm drain system. These hazazds are a potentially signifzcant impact. structures. The Plan shall include measures to control asbestos dust and incorporate site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker protection and off-site resident and worker protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials are required to be tested for contaminant concentrations and aze required to be disposed of at licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials are required be removed in accordance with all State and local laws, regulations, and guidelines. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a Demolition Permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the City of South San Francisco, an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. For the impact of flaking and peeling lead based paint, the requirements of Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1 (T8 CCR 1532.1) must be followed. These requirements include but are not limited to the following. • Loose and peeling lead-containing paint should be removed prior to building demolition. Workers conducting removal of lead paint must receive training in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Lead-containing paint removal shall be designed by a DHS certified lead designer, project monitor or supervisor. • Preparation of a written Lead Compliance Plan that meets the requirements of the lead construction standard by any contractor that impacts leads coatings. • Workers conducting removal of lead paint must be certified by DHS in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Workers that may be exposed above the Action Level must have blood lead levels PAGE 2-10 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance tested prior to commencement of lead work and at least quarterly thereafter for the duration of the Project. Workers that are terminated from the Project should have their blood lead levels tested within 24 hours of termination. • A written exposure assessment must be prepared in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Any amount of lead waste generated, including painted building components, must be chazacterized fox proper disposal in accordance with Title 22, Section 66261.24. Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit by the City of South San Francisco, the applicant shall provide a copy of the BAAQMD Permit and Compliance Plan to the City of South San Francisco Building Official. Mitigation Measure 6-2b: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). The applicant shall check State and Federal lists of regulated substances for chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety of the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, and/or explosive. The list is available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Businesses aze responsible for determining which list to use in consultation with SMCEHD. Should the applicant's business qualify for the program, as determined in consultation with SMCEHD, the applicant must complete a CaIARP registration form listing all regulated substances and submit it to SMCEHD. Following registration, they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMl'). RMPs aze designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential azeas, hospitals and childcaze facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe; handling HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 1 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Impact 6-3: Potential Interference with Emergency Response Plan. The proposed development is not expected to physically interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Wlille traffic will be increased along Dubuque Avenue it is not anticipated to reduce response times. Discussion of specific traffic and transportation impacts resulting from the proposed Project are also discussed in the Traffic and Transportation Section of this DEIR. Demand for fire protection and emergency medical services will increase slightly at the site since the proposed facility is designed to accommodate more visitors and workers than the former Levitz Furniture facility. In addition, Project construction could result in a reduction of response times, due to large construction equipment and reduced access to the site and surrounding azeas. Discussion of specific traffic and transportation impacts resulting from the proposed development are also discussed in the Traffic and Transportation Section of this DEIR. Interference with the local Emergency Response Plan would be a potentially significant impact. regulated substances; training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances are stored safely; and responding to an accidental release. Prior to Final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Risk Management Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. Mitigation Measure 6-2c: Employee Training. The applicant shall develop and implement an Employee Training Plan covering spill prevention, cleanup, and notification procedures in accordance with OSHA and CAL OSHA. The operation of the store will require having sufficient cleanup materials such as spill kits, absorbent rags, and sand available to staff for containing and cleaning up spills and leaks, as well as procedures for proper disposal of contaminated materials. Prior to the Final Inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the Employee Training Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. The Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fue Mazshall. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of accidental releases of hazardous materials to a level less than sfgniftcant. Mitigation Measure 6-3: Fire Department Review. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department is required to review construction plans for roadway modifications and shall establish temporary alternative emergency routes necessary for the duration of the Project construction. The applicant shall design the aisleways and driveways to meet the SSFMC and Uniform Building Code requirements for emergency access. The on-site circulation system shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner in consultation with the City Engineer and Fire Mazshall. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the impact of development to any emergency response or evacuation plan to a level less than significant. Less than Significant PAGE 2-12 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Hydrology ~ g Impact 7-1: Increases in Peak Runoff. According to preliminary calculations by Questa Engineering, the proposed Project will approximately double the 10-year peak storm water flows to the on-site drop inlet along Dubuque Avenue and will increase 10-year peak discharge to the Bay by approximately 43%. No analysis of definitive information has been presented to verify that the existing storm drain system can carry the design flows under proposed Project conditions. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-la: Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a Storm Drain Analysis including a hydraulic analysis of the proposed storm drain system from the Project site to the Oyster Cove outlet to establish whether the existing storm drain pipe has capacity to accommodate the increased flows resulting from the proposed Project. The analysis shall include Rational Method calculations of pre- and post-development 10-year peak flows and shall take into account drainpipe slope and elevations, drainpipe size(s), and system head losses. The Storm Drain Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco City Engineer. If the existing storm drain cannot accommodate the Project flows, Mitigation 7-1b shall be implemented. Less than Significant Impact 7-2: Lack of Hydraulic Sizing Calculations for Hydrodynamic Storm Water Separator and Lack of Alternative Methods for Storm Water Treatment. Hydrodynamic storm water sepazator devices must be properly sized to maximize pollutant removal and meet water quality requirements. The Project applicant has not provided hydraulic sizing calculations or specifications for any of the storm drain treatment system. No other methods of storm water Mitigation Measure 7-1b: Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the Storm Drain Analysis described in Mitigation Measure 7-la shows that the existing storm drain has inadequate capacity for the Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system and calculations of the new system capacity. Methods such as on-site storm water detention, storm drain line upgrades, and an infiltration area shall be incorporated into the Project design. Mitigation Measure 7-2b requires incorporation of a vegetated Swale and infiltration azea for treatment of storm water runoff from pazking lot areas. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, changes to the Project Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of changes in peak runoff to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure 7-2a: Hydrodynamic Storm Water Separator Shall Be Designed in Accordance with CASQA Sizing Recommendations. The hydrodynamic storm water separator shall be designed in accordance with CASQA sizing recommendations for in-line Vortex Separator BMPs. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide final calculations, sizing Less than Significant HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-13 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance treatment such as vegetated swales have been criteria, and maintenance responsibility provisions identified. This presents a potentially sfgniftcant that shall be subject to the review and approval by the impact. City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator. Mitigation Measure 7-2b: Additional Storm Water Treatment Control Methods Shall be Incorporated into the Project. The Storm Drain Plan shall incorporate the following design measures: • A vegetated/grass Swale along the perimeter of the pazking lot • A notched curb along the parking lot perimeter to direct flow from the pazking area into the Swale • A catch basin at the end of the Swale shall duect mnoff into an infiltration area • All maintenance yard/service areas shall be covered. The Storm Drain Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of non-point source pollution to a level less than significant. Impact 7-3: Soil Erosion. Project grading and Mitigation Measure 7-3a: Preparation and Less than other construction activities will disturb site soils, Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to Significant potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall Bay. This represents a potentially sfgniftcant develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and impact. after construction. The Project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding shall be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded azeas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 2) "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) for preventing the dischazge of other construction-related National Pollution Dischazge and Elimination System (NPDES) pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, PAGE 2-14 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level. of Significance concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 3) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but aze not limited to, the following. 4) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 6) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regulaz sweeping of parking lots and other paced azeas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazazdous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Pazking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. 'n The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 8) The applicant shall prepaze informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-15 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall provide a SWPPP to the City Engineer and the Storm water Coordinator. The SWPP shall be subject tot the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator. Mitigation Measure 7-3b: Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Grading activities aze required to be inspected by the applicant's contractor to ensure compliance with the approved grading plans. The City of South San Francisco Public Works Construction Inspector will inspect the SWPPP measures to ensure on-going compliance with the approved SWPPP. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the construction and post-development impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level less than significant. ~O1S~ ~ _ Impact 9-1: Construction Related Noise. Mitigation Measure 9-1: Noise Abatement. While Less than Project construction would result in temporary there aze no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the Significant short-term noise increases due to the operation of immediate Project vicinity that would be affected by heavy equipment. This would be a potentially Project-generated construction noise, neighboring signifzcant impact associated with Project businesses would be subjected to high noise levels development. Construction noise sources range during site prepazation and construction. The site is from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types subject to high ambient noise levels of 75 dB CNEL of construction equipment, and slightly higher produced by freeway traffic on US Highway 101, levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain trains at the adjacent railroad and aircraft overflights types of earthmoving and impact equipment. from SFIA. Noise controls installed on construction equipment can reduce noise levels for many types of equipment to levels in the range of 80dBA to 85dBA PAGE 2-16 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resulting Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance measured at a distance of 25 feet. Construction noise levels aze required to comply with the SSFMC Chapter 8.32 Noise Regulations that sets a maximum limit of 90dBA. With implementation of noise control measures construction noise impacts will be reduced to a level less than signif cant. Txansportatian and Circulation q Impact 11-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Mitigation Measure 11-1: Transportation Demand Less than Trips During Peak Hours. The proposed Project Management Program. The Project sponsors shall Significant would generate 100 net new trips more than implement a Transportation Demand Management existing site uses during the AM and PM peak (TDM) plan consistent with the City of South San hours (± 185 more trips during the AM peak hour Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 and ±350 more trips during the PM peak hour than Transportation Demand Management and acceptable the existing Levitz furniture operation). The San to San Mateo City County Association of Mateo City/County Association of Governments Governments (C/CAG). The TDM plan is required (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the to be on-going for the life of the development. The implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") may be credited for each TDM measure. specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM plan measures the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new that can generate trip credits to offset the ± 185 net peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) new AM peak hour trips and ±350 net new PM peak Projected to be generated by the development. hour trips generated by the Project. Since the majority of vehicles associated with Home Depot will This would be a significant zmpdct. be retail customers and not employees (and not influenced by typical TDM measures), the Project applicant and C/CAG will need to meet and develop a program agreeable to the City, C/CAG and Home Depot. Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the Project's impact to a less than significant level. Impact 11-2: Year 2006 Intersection Level of Mitigation Measure 11-2: None. There aze no Significant and Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that physical improvements considered feasible at this Unavoidable all but one analyzed intersection would maintain intersection by City of South San Francisco acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour Engineering Division to improve operation to Base conditions with the proposed Project. At the Case Conditions or better. Oyster Point Boulevazd/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The impact would remain szgnifzcant and intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would unavoidable. degrade operation from LOSE to LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%). This would be a signifzcant impact. Impact 11-5: Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Mitigation Measure 11-5A: 50~ Percentile Queue Significant and Impacts. Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the Unavoidable proposed Project would result in significant 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities queuing impacts during the PM peak traffic hour in Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard 2006 at the 50~ Percentile Queue. Proposed restriping of the westbound HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 7 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as 50~ Percentile Queue required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, PM PEAK HOUR two through lanes and one right turn lane 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister will reduce westbound through queuing Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point demand to 195 feet, less than the available Boulevard/Airport Boulevard 255 feet of storage. Therefore, this impact intersection. will be reduced to a level less-than- The Oyster Point westbound significant level. approach through lanes would 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque receive more than a two percent Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. There aze no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by 2) Oyster Point City of South San Francisco Engineering Boulevard/Dubuque Division staff to reduce queuing to the Base Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound Case conditions. On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound The impact would remain signiftcant and approach left turn/through lanes unavoidable. would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case Mitigation 11-5B: 95~ Percentile Queue queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities the combined left/through lane Boulevard/Oyster Point would also be increased beyond the Boulevard/Airport Boulevazd available storage with the addition Proposed restriping of the westbound of Project traffic. Oyster Point Boulevazd approach (as required of the Bay West Cove 95~ Percentile Queue development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the Project would would reduce westbound through queuing result in significant queuing impacts during the AM demand to 225 feet, less than the available and PM peak traffic hour in 2006 at the 95~ 255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th Percentile Queue. percentile queuing in the westbound left turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet, AM PEAK HOUR which is the planned available storage 1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque length. This impact would be reduced to a Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On- less-than-significant level. Ramp. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque The Dubuque Avenue northbound Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp approach left turn lane would receive There are no physical improvements more than a two percent increase in considered feasible at this intersection by traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base City of South San Francisco staff to reduce Case queuing. queuing to Base Case conditions. PM PEAK HOUR Impact would remain signiftcant and unavoidable. 2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. PAGE 2-18 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also, acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. 3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes. These would be signiftcant impacts. Impact 11-6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Mitigation Measure 11-6 Significant and Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that Unavoidable all but three analyzed intersections would maintain Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport conditions with the proposed Project. At the Boulevard Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Provide a proportionate share Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak contribution to the same mitigations hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes required of the Terrabay Phase III would increase by less than two percent (1.1%). At development. the Oyster Point Boulevazd/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Re-stripe the northbound Airport intersection, AM peak hour operation would Boulevazd approach to provide a remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less second left tum lane. than two percent. However, during the PM peak Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities hour operation would also remain LOS F, but Boulevazd approach to provide two volumes would increase by more than two percent left turn lanes, an exclusive through (2.1%), resulting in a significant impact at this lane and a shared through/right turn location. Project traffic would also produce a lane. Improvements to the eastbound significant impact during the PM peak hour at the approach should also provide Bayshore Boulevazd/ Sister Cities adjustments to the north curb line of Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Sister Cities Boulevazd, if needed, to Boulevazd intersection. Operation would remain allow safe turn movements, which will LOS F and volumes would increase by more than be conducted by Project drivers. two percent (2.6%). Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds These would be significant impacts. vehicle delay The impact would be reduced to a less-tbdn- signifuant level. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-19 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance 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 Engineering Division staff to improve operation to the Base Case conditions or better. The impact would remain signiftcant and unavoidable. Impact 11-9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50~ Percentile Queue Significant and Impacts. Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the Unavoidable proposed project would result in significant 50th Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities percentile queuing impacts at two intersections Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in Boulevard (same improvements as for level of 2020. Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the service) proposed project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at three intersections • Provide two left turn lanes on the during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. 2020. • Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevazd 50~ Percentile Queue approach. AM PEAK HOUR These measures will not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque acceptable levels. Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would • There are no physical improvements receive a ±4.4% increase in traffic considered feasible at this intersection with unacceptable Base Case by City of South San Francisco queuing. Engineering Division staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to the Base Case conditions. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95~ Percentile Queue Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities i Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport intersect on. Boulevard (same improvements as for level of • The Oyster Point Boulevard service) westbound approach through lanes would receive a ± 4% increase in • Reconfigure the eastbound Sister traffic with unacceptable Base Case Cities Boulevard approach to provide queuing. two left turn lanes, an exclusive • The Oyster Point Boulevard through lane and a combined westbound approach left turn lane through/right turn lane. would receive a ±4.1% increase in • Stripe a second left turn lane on the traffic with unacce table Base Case northbound Airport Boulevazd PAGE 2-20 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance queuing. approach. These measures would not reduce unacceptable Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque westbound through and left turn lane queuing to Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- acceptable levels. Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque approach left turn/through lanes would receive a ± 6.2% increase in Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp traffic with unacceptable Base Case • There are no physical improvements queuing. considered feasible at this intersection 95~ Percentile Queue by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce project queuing impacts to AM PEAK HOUR Base Case conditions. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramps/Tenabay Access Ramp • Provide a fair share contribution • The Dubuque Avenue northbound toward lengthening the Bayshore approach left turn lane and Boulevard southbound approach left combined through/left turn lanes turn lane (from 350 to 550 feet) in would receive a 7.2% increase in conjunction with Terrabay providing traffic with unacceptable Base Case an additional lane on the eastbound queuing. intersection approach. The impact at this intersection would be reduced to a Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities less-than-significant level. Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. intersection. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 4.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevazd westbound approach left turn lane would have a demand increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a ± 4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound a roach left turn lane HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-21 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts would receive a ±4.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left tum lane would receive a ±8.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left tum and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a ± 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay North Access • The off-ramp lanes would receive a 2.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. Impact 11-10: Project Access Impacts. The proposed Project would have three driveway connections to Dubuque Avenue. The north and central driveway connections would be in the same locations as driveways now serving Levitz furniture. The Home Depot southerly driveway would be in the same location as Levitz's most southerly driveway. The existing Levitz fourth driveway connection to Dubuque Avenue just north of the Levitz southerly driveway would be eliminated. Speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour. Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 11-10: Left Turn Lane Revise the Project site plan layout in the vicinity of the central driveway in order to widen Dubuque Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 75 and preferably 100 feet long. Sight Lines The north Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, allowing one inbound and outbound lane. • The existing ±150-foot-long left tum lane on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this intersection would be maintained. It would Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway. The City of South San Francisco shall post speed limit signs of 30 to 35 miles per hour along Dubuque Avenue in the vicinity of Home Depot for both travel directions. Resulting Level of Significance Less than Significant t Intersection CbanneliZation Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix B. z American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. PAGE 2-22 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance provide storage for about six to seven autos. • Prohibit left turns out of the northerly Home Dubuque Avenue has two northbound through Depot driveway. lanes and one southbound through lane at this • The City of South San Francisco shall prohibit location. However, on-street parking is now on-street parking along the Project's entire allowed adjacent to the Home Depot site between Dubuque Avenue frontage. the north and central driveways. If this parking is • If needed, consider provision of "all way stop" occupied, northbound flow is limited to a single control at the Project's central driveway lane. intersection. The central Home Depot driveway would be 30 These measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less than signifzcant. feet wide, also allowing one wide inbound and outbound lane. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide just south of this driveway and widens to 38 feet just north of this driveway. The southerly Home Depot driveway would be 57 feet wide, allowing adequate room for truck turn movements. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to the intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide in the vicinity of this driveway. Turn Lane Storage Requirement Evaluation has been conducted to determine whether the existing 150-foot left turn lane on the southbound approach to the northerly Home Depot driveway would provide adequate storage for expected demand. Based upon two separate methodologies, by 2020 the 95th percentile queue would not be expected to exceed three to four vehicles. The existing turn pocket, with room for six to seven vehicles, would provide adequate storage for this demand. Methodology #1 Estimation of Maximum queue Lengths at UnagnaliZed Interrectionr, by John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001-see Appendix B. 95th percentile queue = AM Peak: 3 car lengths PM Peak : 3 car lengths Methodology #2 Number of vehicles, on average, arriving each two minutes. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-23 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance 95th percentile queue = AM Peak: 2 car lengths PM Peak : 4 caz lengths This Would be aless-than-signifzcant impact. Turn Lane Warrants The Home Depot southerly driveway would never have volume levels warranting the provision of a left turn lane. However, by 2020 PM, peak hour volumes at the central Home Depot driveway would be exceeding warrant criteria' for the provision of a southbound left turn lane. AM peak volumes in 2020 would also be approaching warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. Sight Lines at Project Driveway Connections to Dubuque Avenue Vehicle speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour. Minimum stopping sight distances for travel speeds of 40 and 45 miles per hour are 305 and 360 feet, respectively, based upon guidelines in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street, 2004.2 Both the central and northerly Home Depot driveways will connect to Dubuque Avenue on the inside of a curve. This will require that direct line of site between drivers on Dubuque Avenue and vehicles exiting the Project site at both driveways extend through landscaping along the site frontage. This presents the possibility that landscaping may interfere with required sight lines. Adequate sight lines do not exist to allow for cars to safely turn left from the northern driveway. In addition, if on- street parking between the Project's central and northerly driveway is occupied, these pazked vehicles may also interfere with minimum required sight lines. This would be a significant impact. Impact 11-11: On Site Circulation. The Project Mitigation Measure 11-11 Less than Site Plan by Greenberg Farrow shows all internal Significant pazking aisles will be 25 feet wide and serve 90- ~ Revise the parking lot layout to provide at least degree parking. This meets City code criteria and three and preferably four caz lengths good traffic engineering practice. The central channelization and storage for inbound vehicles at the north Project driveway (75 to 100 feet) driveway is channelized well into the site and before the fast internal intersection. Two should operate acceptably with customer traffic. PAGE 2-24 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance The southerly driveway will be used primarily by inbound lanes at least 75 feet long would be delivery trucks and a truck maneuvering area to preferable. Design the first internal intersection back into unloading docks is provided just internal such that diagonal movements to access to the site. This azea should also function another parking aisle are not possible. acceptably assuming it is marked as a truck • Provide astriping/signing plan acceptable to unloading/employee pazking area only. the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner and City Engineer to acceptably control The site plan also shows, however, two internal vehiculaz movements at the parking aisle/second floor ramp intersection area on locations which, as designed, will produce the ground floor in the northern pazt of the significant safety and operational concerns. parking garage. Location one is just internal to the parking lot at Implementation of these measures will reduce the the northerly Project driveway (which is Projected pacts to a level less-than-significant. to be the busiest site driveway). Inbound drivers have only one and a half car lengths of channelization between Dubuque Avenue and the first internal pazking aisle intersection before being confronted with a decision to make a left or right turn. Flow into parking aisles leading towards the entrance to the store is offset to the left and right. This will lead to driver confusion and delay even before taking into account outbound traffic maneuvering from the various parking aisles to get onto Dubuque Avenue. An inbound driver that needs to stop immediately upon entering the site could result in the next inbound vehicle extending onto Dubuque Avenue. This first internal intersection would be very difficult to adequately stop sign control and would result in significant safety and operational concerns. Location two is in the northern section of the parking gazage where the ramp serving the second level pazking comes to ground level pazallel to another parking aisle 20 feet to the west. A third parking aisle also joins into this area. As with location one above, providing sign control for safe vehicle movements in this northern azea will be difficult. These would be significant impacts. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-25 CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 2-26 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS The Project site is part of the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Planning Area. The area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. The Project site is a 7.62 acre parcel located at 900 Dubuque Avenue in the northwest portion of the East of 101 area, and is bounded on the west and north by Dubuque Avenue and Highway 101, on the south by single story office buildings and services, and to the east by Southern Pacific Railroad line rights-of--way. The Project site's location is shown in Figure 3-1. The site is currently developed with a 156,637 square foot building occupied by Levitz SL San Francisco, which operates a furniture store and warehouse. There is an abandoned railroad spur which once served the warehouse portion of the Levitz located at the rear of the building, which will be removed prior to site construction. The site is relatively level and slopes away from the building entrance towards the northeast corner of the site. Site vegetation consists of native, mature trees and overgrown bushes and shrubs. A number of eucalyptus trees, varying in size from 10" to 36" in diameter, and redwood trees, varying in size from 10" to 30" in diameter, as well as a 24" diameter cypress tree are dispersed throughout the site. Most natural features are gone because of the existing commercial use. 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project would involve the demolition of an existing 156,637 square foot Levitz Furniture building and the construction of a 101,272 square foot Home Depot home improvement warehouse, an adjoining 24,522 square foot Garden Center, and atwo-level parking structure providing 426 parking spaces. Located on a 7.62 acre parcel, the building lot coverage would be 38.0%. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-1 CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Goals and Objectives As part of its application, the applicant provided the City of South San Francisco with the following list of Proposed Project Goals and Objectives: • To satisfy the home improvement market needs of both do-it-yourself customers and local contractors in South San Francisco and the surrounding area by offering Home Depot's complete range of home improvement services and products; To construct the proposed store on a site that is of sufficient size to provide adequate parking and loading spaces to meet projected customer demand and operational needs; To construct the proposed store with convenient freeway and roadway access, with reasonable access characteristics to provide safe and efficient customer, contractor, and delivery vehicle ingress and egress; • To provide a source of significant new sales tax revenue to South San Francisco; • To provide new retail employment opportunities to residents of South San Francisco and surrounding areas; and • To comply with the objectives of the General Plan, the City Planning Code and all applicable codes, plans, and ordinances of South San Francisco. In regards to the last objective, the project would be successful in meeting several goals and policies outlined in the City of South San Francisco General Plan, and more specifically, the East of 101 Area Plan. According to General Plan Policy 3.5-G-4, the East of 101 Area Plan is the guide for detailed implementation of General Plan policies in the East of 101 Area. Amore detailed analysis of the Project's consistenry with the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan are included in Chapter 8: Land Use. However, a few of the notable policies of the East of 101 Area Plan it would meet include: Policy LU-2: the Project would enhance property values, and increase property tax revenues, in the area, and generate a significant new source of sales tax revenue. Policy LU-24: the Project would provide a new retail use not only for local residents, but for employees of the East of 101 Area. Policy DE-3: the Project would include streetscape improvements to Dubuque Avenue, which the City has recognized as having special visual importance PAGE 3-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR . ~ ~ ~ .~ _ j ~ ~~~ ~ .. _ - / 101 ~ /TSB<LrD ~ f x C`,_' l ~ j~ ~ ~ 0V l ...._,.~ X ,.. ~ '~ ~ ~P~ ~~ -~ OYSTER POINT BL ~ __.. ~`~ PRO JECT SITE P •~ ~ ~Q „ ~" x : x~ ~ o J~ l P ~`~ ~ , J~ x~ ~~ ~ GG ~ , ~, .~ --~,~~~p O ~ ~QQy ~ x - F (' , GRAN AVF 101 r J5~ X j , ...... ~.,, ~- ~ max.. ~, JV a .}- -' Fc ~ti0 ' h x r ~ r q`F ri r ; ~n X i ' X ~ .~ i (y~ W . y ~ ., , ~ r i y. ~ K m D: r ~ ~ _ '~~-4 ~ f_F ~ ~ w ~ ~c +_ ~ 1 _. .. ,.: ~ ~ w k O ~ ~. ~ ~ ,tim ~ -.. a- A '" " ,PV LNUT _ of RKEL W CREEK i ~ [ € e ~ ~'w r ' * ~ ,,,X •\ '~: k , ~!`-~' OAKLAND eea I ~ ~ ~ .r SAN '~~~ ~ T ~* ~' ~ . x 1 T .. ; rri N ~ RAAAON ~ ~ 101 . .. ~ ~ ~h ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ 580 x' - ~ ~ ~ SAN LOREN ~ ~ Y * , .. V 47 '_ a.- 4'X't~ . ~ \\'k k T . HAVWARD 5' ti ~~~ 280 . ~ 1 ~• 'i ~ ~ , i ~I .,, e7~ '. FREMO ~ ~~ MAT O i ~~ F KS ~ ~ , ` 101 E . ~ ~ ~ a k O o , fl ~ ~ ~p~ ~« .'1 ` O `k ~ 1., l ALT 01 880 W ` • Q 1T ~ ~I SA RA -~e` j a ,... _... - ~, g z ~ it, 380 ~ ~ Bp SAN ~ JOSE N 0 ~ 2000 f Feet Figure 3-1 SOURCE: Lampluer-Gregory Project Site Location CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR Demolition Following approximately 4-8 weeks of environmental remediation work, demolition of the existing Levitz Building would begin. While the applicant has yet to extensively consult with or hire a demolition contractor, it is expected that demolition activities would last approximately 4 weeks. Construction Building construction would be of the tilt-up variety and would immediately follow the completion of demolition activities. Site grading and building pad activities are estimated to take about 6-8 weeks, and would involve 1,200 cu yards of cut and 1,200 cu yards of fill, with a total import of 11,400 cu yards and total export of 4,500 cu yards. This would be followed by building and site work, which would be completed in approximately 40 weeks. Building Characteristics and Architecture The Project perimeter wall would be 28'-0" high, with a cornice and an accentuated entrance area at 38'-0" high. Architectural features, such as decorative pilasters at the Garden Center, accent cornice and earth toned paint color would be added to the elevations to create depth and attempt to reduce the building to pedestrian scale. Roof top mechanical equipment would be screened by the raised building parapet walls. The transformer, emergency generator, and pallet storage would be located in a 6' tall masonry enclosure located at the rear of the store, which would not be visible from the street. Parking Structure The parking structure would be 29'-6" tall at its highest point, with ivy planted along the columns facing Dubuque Avenue, Interstate 101, and the Gateway Business Park to the east so as to soften the look. Landscaping The Project would include extensive landscaping designed to conform with East of 101 Area Plan Policy DE-55 and to exceed landscape development standards outlined in Section 13.30.100 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, and would include landscape islands, planters, and berms along Dubuque Avenue to buffer the parking lot from the street. The Project Site Plan is shown in Figure 3-2. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-5 3.3 REQUIRED APPROVALS The EIR will be used to provide decision makers and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering approval of the Project. The following approvals would be required: 1. Use Permit 2. Type C Sign Permit 3. Planned Unit Development Permit 4. Design Review 5. Transportation Demand Management Plan 6. Demolition Permit 7. Building Permits HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-6 ~d' c LlProjeds42b1b - 55F Home Depol v m .ti d -o O m n -~ I d'a ~~ ~ ~~~ ¢~ ~~ p, ! s~ ~ ° p ~~ ;3p~a e~~ ~ ~ ° ~ $ ° ~ ~ a ~ _':~"crs , r.n. %sY.:•~•tl f'rF r , n=. ~C7fin Yru^; !' p 2 F PCrffKN6NUlY 8vJL4T11LId 0A. ll112i~C YN7 Y yfywtluMVr4 AdrJSVrn _U7.'0I' ~ ~ ~ U`~.1F I I LOMB _ LOADINfl S ~ ~ ~ 1 i; ~7S'-C 75 - ~ C ~ ~~ ]]' , ~ ~ ~ ro CIEM L ~ ..ax a ~ ~ ~ ' ' Q ~ ` • ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~~ ~ ~1~~ ~ ~ m • ~Z 1 ;nQ ~ry CZT +~ ~rJ p \ ~1f 1 >~r ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 I s ~ ;' a ~~~ 0 y p N Z I ~tl ~ti ~ >, ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,IC-o' q ~ L"~$ ° ~' ~ J ~, ~~ ~ I i ~~r~,,~/ ~ ~ 4 JJi a 1= /~ O 1 ! _ `~ I ~111 j 3 11 I ~ I I I ~ JO' I • ~ r l ~ n ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~z i ' ~ ~~~ II.: I ~ Y~ o ~~rl 1 ~ A e,,i 1 a 1 1+f' I ~ ~ '` °°e ~ is ~~~ 1 ~• ~R 4 ~~ t Y ;l.' I~ 6' `' ~ raap~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~„ ~k 12 ,fib ~ ~ 3~ [Q~ i ~ i. ~ • h1 7~a 4~ xr ;L U•E ~ ~~d B ~ n mil: i r:l l" :..r ~~~~ ~ r is ~~ a ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ >om s~~ ~~ ~~~ {,i Ny ~ {p (,I N T~~ _,.1 v ~ ~ n~ ~ ~ mii nl Q t iP 1 ~ B-' ~ ~ S ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ; k a ~~a ~~ a ~ j . ~' ' ~ ENTRY ~,_a. : '~ ~ , .r/ ~~ Z Q I O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r p. I ~ .dl 5 ~ v I ~y~ ~ ~ ;, ~ ~ r I q ~, m ~ •• ~ ~ ~o ~ ~~ ~; ~• s /~/~G 0 m~ 89 ~ Q' ~~ ~ I f ~ `,, .C ~ C;*` .. <<~ ~ : °~ 1° ° n '~ ~~~ max uen D miJ~ ~ k,`.•~ 7G I z 0 n m r J m a O z m_ W 0 m n ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ m ~ -p m w N Z 0 --~ O D r m CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY 4 AI R QUALITY 4.1 INTRODUCTION This section examines the degree to which the proposed Project may result in significant adverse changes to air quality. Both short-term construction emissions occurring from activities such as site grading, as well as long-term effects related to the ongoing operation of the proposed Project are discussed. The analysis contained herein focuses on air pollution from two perspectives: daily emissions and pollutant concentrations. "Emissions" refers to the actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day. "Concentrations" refers to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million (PPM) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds with cool Pacific air to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. As a result, winds are usually from the west. There are periods in fall and winter where winds tend to flow from easterly or southerly directions. Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in elevated air pollutant exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the U.S. Highway 101, Interstate 280, and El Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. Winds blowing out of the south and southeast expose the city to emissions from the San Francisco International Airport and the industrial areas that are east of US Highway 101. 4.2 REGULATORY SETTING Air quality management responsibilities exist at local, State and federal levels of government. Air quality management planning programs developed during the past decade have generally been in response to requirements established by the federal Clean Air Act. However, the enactment of the California Clean Air Act of 1988 has produced additional changes in the structure and administration of air quality management programs in the State. South San Francisco is located within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 4-1 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies air basins or portion thereof as in "attainment" or "nonattainment". Where there is insufficient monitoring data to classify an area, but that area likely is in attainment, EPA uses the classification "unclassified". These classifications are based on whether or not the basin meets national ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a basin is classified under the California Clean Air Act with respect to the achievement of State ambient air quality standards. Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the standard. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone (03) and State standards for respirable particulate matter (1'Mio)• The EPA has designated the region as moderate nonattainment for ground level 03. The region has developed and updated plans to achieve this standard. Recently, the EPA recognized that the region has not violated the 1-hour 03 standard over the last three years (2000-2003) and has proposed to redesignate the Bay Area as a maintenance area. Since then, the EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (in June 2005). However, EPA has recently classified the region as marginally nonattainment for the newer more stringent 8-hour 03 standard. EPA requires the region to adopt a plan that will bring it into attainment with that standard by 2007. The most recent monitoring data (2002-2004) indicate that the Bay Area may be in attainment of this new 8-hour standard. The Bay Axea has met the CO standards for over a decade and is classified attainment maintenance by the EPA. The EPA grades the region unclassified for all other air pollutants, which include PMIO and PMZ s• At the State level, the region is considered serious nonattainment for ground level 03 and non- attainment for PMIO. California ambient air quality standards are more stringent than the national ambient air quality standards. The region is required to adopt plans on a triennial basis that show progress towards meeting the State 03 standard. The area is considered attainment or unclassified fox all other pollutants. In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of the California Clean Aix Act. The Plan has been updated three times, in 1994, 1997 and 2000, with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels, and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. An update to the plan is expected later this year. 4.3 AIR QUALITY DATA The BAAQMD monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the Project PAGE 4-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY site axe located in San Francisco and Redwood City. Table 4-1 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites over the last five years. The table shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the Project area with the exception of the state standard for PM,o and ozone. TABLE 4-1 Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 2000-2004 Monitoring Days Exceeding Standard Pollutant Standard Station 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 NAAQS 1-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 BA AREA 3 1 2 1 0 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 Os NAAQS 8-hr Redwootl City 0 0 0 0 0 BA AREA 4 7 7 7 0 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 CAAQS 1-hr Redwood City 0 1 0 1 1 BA AREA 12 15 16 19 7 San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 NAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 BA AREA 0 0 0 0 0 PMio San Francisco 2 7 2 1 1 CAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 1 4 1 0 1 BA AREA 7 10 6 6 7 San Francisco 0 -- 4 0 0 PMz.s NAAQS 24-hr Redwood City 0 -- 0 0 0 BA AREA 1 5 5 0 1 All Other San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 (C0, NOz, All Other Redwood City 0 0 0 0 0 Lead, SOz) BA AREA 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2005. 4.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 4-3 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY 1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The criteria is further defined as follows: - If the Project shows an estimated population greater than assumed in the Clean Air Plan (as defined in ABAG Projections), then it would be inconsistent with air quality planning, and would be deemed to have a significant air quality impact. - If the Project shows a growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) higher than the population growth rate, it would be considered to be hindering progress toward achieving a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in passenger vehicle trips and miles traveled. Therefore, it would be considered inconsistent with regional air quality planning, and deemed to have a significant air quality impact. - The consistency of the Project with Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) must also be considered in evaluating air quality effects associated with implementation of the Project. If the Project does not demonstrate reasonable efforts to implement the TCMs identified in the Clean Air Plan, then it would be considered to be inconsistent with the CAP and deemed to have a significant air quality impact. 2. Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or Projected air quality violation? 3. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5. Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CONFLICT WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN PROJECTIONS The amount of development associated with the proposed Project is consistent with the intensity of development for the Project site foreseen in the South San Francisco General Plan, which was published in 1999. This Project falls within the East of 101 Area, which is actually an aggregation of four sub-areas in the General Plan Land Use Element and encompasses all the land within City limits east of Highway 101. This Project is zoned "Planned Commercial" under this planning sub-area. The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and intensities, would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's most recent Clean Air Plan, released in 2000. The Project would therefore be consistent with, and have no impact on, the Clean Air Plan. Furthermore, commercial Projects of this type tend to serve the needs of communities and not create additional population or vehicle travel. PAGE 4-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY Clean Air Plan Transportation Control Measures Impact 4-1 Implementation of TCMs. Determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan also involves assessing whether Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are implemented. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies seven TCMs (TCM numbers 1, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20) that Cities and Counties are identified among the implementing agencies. At the Project level, the City along with the Project applicant would be required to implement the following TCMs: TCM#1 Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs TCM#9 Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities TCM#12 Improve Arterial Traffic Management TCM#19 Pedestrian Travel The Project does not include specific measures that are consistent with applicable TCMs identified in the Clean Air Plan. This is a potentially sigtliftcant impact. Under the General Plan policies, the Project would be required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce Project trips. This would in turn reduce air pollutant emissions. If appropriate TCMs are included in the TDP plan, then the Project would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan TCMs and the impact would be less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure 4-1 Traffic Demand Management. The Project will be required to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan since it would generate more than 100 new vehicle trips per day (approximately 185 new trips during the AM peak hour and 350 new trips during the PM peak hour, per Table 11- 15B), which is a significant impact (Impact 11-1). The TDM plan shall include the following components so that the Project would reasonably implement applicable TCMs: 1. TDM#1 -Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. There are currently shuttles that serve employers in the area. The Project shall become a sponsoring employer so that shuttles would serve the site, providing employees an alternative mode of commuting. 2. TDM#9 -Provide bicycle amenities so that employees and customers can bicycle to the Project. Such amenities shall include safe onsite bicycle access and convenient storage (bike racks). Amenities for employees shall include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 4-5 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY 3. TDM#12 -The Applicant and City shall work to improve traffic operations at intersections serving the Project that are predicted to operate at congested levels. Such improvements shall include lane striping, signal timing adjustments, and additional turn lane capacity. 4. TDM#19 -The Project shall include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe and convenient access to the Project and any shuttle or future bus stops that serve the Project (see TDM#1 above). The final TDM Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) and the City's Chief Planner. With the implementation of appropriate TCMs, impacts related to consistency with the Clean Air Plan would be reduced to a less than signif icant level. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Impact 4-2 Construction Dust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant impact. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Dust emission during periods of construction would increase particulate concentrations at neighboring properties. This impact is potentially significant, but normally mitigatible. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines' provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts are based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emissions of PM,o. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Another source of construction impacts would be exhaust emissions from construction vehicles. Diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, an ozone precursor pollutant, are the two primary pollutants that are of concern from construction exhaust. Diesel particulate matter can lead to localized 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guideliner, 1996 (Revised 1999). PAGE 4-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY impacts; however, sensitive receptors are not located near the Project site. Emissions of nitrogen oxides can contribute to higher ozone levels at downwind areas in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD calculates region-wide construction exhaust emissions of ozone precursor pollutants (nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases) in air quality planning efforts to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. Therefore, quantitative analyses of these construction emissions are not recommended by the BAAQMD unless the lead agency believes there would be unusually large or intensive activities. The BAAQMD does recommend that lead agencies consider mitigation measures to reduce construction exhaust emissions. Mitigation Measure 4-2 Dust Suppression Procedures and measures to reduce exhaust. The following is a list of feasible control measures that the BAAQMD recommends for construction emissions of PMlo at Project sites greater than 4 acres. In addition, the BAAQMD recommends construction Projects include measures to reduce exhaust emissions. The following measures will utilized to the extent possible. 1. Sprinkle water on all active construction areas at least twice daily, and more often when conditions warrant. 2. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 4. Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites on a daily basis. 5. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 6. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. 7. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). 8. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 4-7 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY 9. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 10. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11. The applicant shall be required to ensure that removal or disturbance of any materials contains asbestos, lead paint or other hazardous pollutants during renovation and demolition activities, will be conducted in accordance with BAAQMD rules and regulations. 12. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). 13. Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. 14. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a construction plan that includes measures to reduce air quality impacts and documentation that the BAAQMD has issued a permit. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Building Official and City Engineer. Implementation of construction controls will reduce air pollutant emissions associated with construction activities to a level less than significant. Violate Air Quality Standards Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the Project would be the pollutant of greatest concern at the local level. The intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue would be affected by the Project and include a combination of high traffic volumes and congestion. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide concentrations would be the highest at this interchange. There are 1- and 8-hour standards for carbon monoxide. The 8-hour standard is the most stringent and is always exceeded if the 1-hour standard is exceeded. Therefore, this analysis evaluated impacts against the 8-hour standard. Carbon monoxide concentrations were modeled using screening methods recommended by the BAAQMD that are based on the Caline4 Line-Source dispersion model. This method uses traffic volumes, emissions, meteorology, and the roadway/receptor geometry. For this assessment, meteorological conditions most conducive for high carbon monoxide concentrations in the Bay Area, peak-hour traffic conditions (i.e., evening period), slow traffic PAGE 4-8 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY speeds and emission factors generated by the California Air Resources Board emission factor model (i.e., EMFAC2002) were used as input to the model. Modeled concentrations were added to background levels to predict total carbon monoxide concentrations. The contribution from US Highway 101 traffic was included in this assessment since the intersection is only about 200 feet from the nearest freeway lanes. The screening method is designed to be a conservative method of determining whether or not a Project may cause exceedances of the carbon monoxide air quality standard. If the screening method predicts significant levels, than amore- refined analysis may be conducted that would more accurately predict carbon monoxide levels, which would likely be lower. As shown in Table 4-2, the screening analysis indicates that existing 8-hour Carbon Monoxide Levels are currently below California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Predicted 8-hour Carbon Monoxide Levels with the Project in place under near-term (2006) and future Project conditions (in 2020) are predicted to remain below California ambient air quality standards. As a result, the impact on local air quality resulting from the Project is considered to be less-than-significant. TABLE 4-2 PRFnrcTFn R_uolrR WORST CASE CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS fIN PPMI Descri lion 2005 Existin 2006 Base Conditions with Pro'ect 2020 Base Conditions with Pro'ect Oyster Point Boulevard and Contribution from: Dubuque Avenue w/adjacent Intersection- 3.6 PPM 4.3 PPM 1.6 PPM freeway Freeway (S 101)- 1.2 PPM 0.9 PPM 0.3 PPM Background- 2.8 PPM 2.8 PPM 2.5 PPM Total: 7.6 PPM 8.OPPM 4.4 PPM Significance Thresholds 9.0 PPM for 8-hour exposure (CAAQS) CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentially significant regional emissions. The District recommends the use of the URBEMIS2002 model to quantify the emissions associated with new Projects. Based on Crane Transportation Group's estimate of 4,690 daily two way trips to and from the Project site, URBEMIS2002 Model calculations were performed in order to determine whether the Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NO,~ or PMlo. Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG, NOX, or PM,o. The threshold for CO is 550 pounds per day, but it only applies to stationary sources (e.g., power plants); and therefore, does not apply to this Project. Calculated emissions are shown in Table 4-3. Model output is contained in Appendix C along with the results of the screening level CO HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 4-9 CHAPTER 4: AIR QUALITY modeling calculations. The Project's emissions for ROG, NOx, and PM,o are calculated to be below the significance threshold. This would be a less than significant impact. TABLE 4-3 DAILY REGIONAL AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) Description Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Particulate Matter (PMIO) Area Sources (e.g., water and space heating) 0.2 1.2 <0.1 Motor vehicle sources 35.0 41.9 36.7 Total 35.21bs 43.11bs 36.71bs BAAQMD Signifrcance Thresholds 801bs 80 lbs BO !bs SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors would be homes opposite the freeway over 300 feet west of the proposed Project site, and two childcare facilities on Gateway Boulevard, about 400 yards southeast of the Project site. However, the homes are located upwind from the Project site, and are separated from the site by U.S. 101. The childcare facilities, while located downwind from the Project site, are separated from the site by several large buildings, and are located a far enough distance away that any materials or operational emissions that might be generated on the project site would not represent a significant air quality impact. Project construction activities would lead to the emission of construction dust and exhaust, the impact of which would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-2. Project operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. ODORS During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the Project site's boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore less than significant. Operational activities from these types of land uses do not produce objectionable odors that normally extend beyond their site boundaries; therefore, less than significant. PAGE 4-10 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 5 GEOLOGY AN D SOI LS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The following section describes the Geology, Soils and Seismicity of the Project area. The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including: (1) Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Project site completed by The Twinning Laboratories, Inc. Qanuary 11, 2005); (2) Geotechnical Feasibility Study, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco prepared by Treadwell and Rollo (August 8, 2002); (3) Review of USGS Open File Reports (OFR) of the area, including a map of the bedrock geology (USGS OFR 98-354, 1998), Quaternary Geologic Map, including liquefaction susceptibility (USGS OFR 97-715, 1997), and Landslide Map (USGS OFR 97-745 C); (4) Review of Official California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology- CDMG) Maps, including the South San Francisco Quadrangle Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone Map (1982), and the Fault Activity Map of California (1994); (5) Review of government websites, including the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) website (www.abag.gov) for a summary of hazards ranging from liquefaction to seismic landsliding; and (6) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances and regulations. 5.2 SETTING Regional Seismicity The site lies in the tectonically active Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of northern California, on the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. Development of the northwest trending ridges and valleys in the vicinity, including the Santa Cruz Mountains, and San Francisco Bay, are controlled by active tectonism along the boundary between the North American and Pacific Tectonic Plates, the San Andreas Fault System. Area faults have predominantly right-lateral strike-slip (horizontal) movement, with lesser dip-slip (vertical) components of displacement. Horizontal and vertical movement is distributed on the various fault strands within a fault zone. Throughout geologic time the fault strands experiencing active deformation change in response to regional shifts in stress and strain from plate motions. Within 15 miles of the Project site there are three major active faults that display large right- lateral strike-slip offsets, the San Andreas fault, the San Gregorio fault, and the Hayward fault. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-1 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS The nearest active fault zones to the site are the San Andreas fault, located 3.4 miles to the southwest, the San Gregorio Fault (Seal Cove fault), located approximately 12 miles to the southwest, and the Hayward Fault, located approximately 15.5 miles to the northeast. The nearest potentially active fault (showing evidence of Quaternary movement, or movement within the past 1.6 million years) is the San Bruno fault, located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the site. The nearest geologic fault (not mapped as active or potentially active) is the Hillside fault, mapped as crossing the subject property just to the north of the current Levitz Furniture building location. Seismicity of the Project region has resulted in several major earthquakes during the historic period, including the 1868 Hayward Earthquake, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and most recently, the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (CDMG, 2000). Small, non-damaging earthquakes occur frequently in the Project vicinity. Larger potentially damaging earthquakes are expected to occur periodically, and are considered likely during the design life of the Project site. The Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other scientists conclude that there is a 62% probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking the San Francisco Bay region before 2032.' Regional Geology The site is located at the edge of the San Francisco Bay, a submerged valley in the Central Coast Ranges of California. This area is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys oriented sub-parallel to faults of the San Andreas Fault System. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Tertiary strata commonly rest in angular unconformity on rocks of the Franciscan complex, which is composed of weakly to strongly metamorphosed greywacke (sandstone), argillite, limestone, basalt, serpentinite, and chert. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are ancient Jurassic oceanic crust and deep marine (pelagic) deposits accreted onto the edge of the North American Continent and metamorphosed as a result of accretion and partial subduction. These deposits have been overlain by Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. Deposits of these rocks may be found outcropping along San Bruno Mountain in the Project vicinity. Little metamorphosed, high-pressure, low-temperature metamorphic minerals are common in the Franciscan complex, but there are also high grade metamorphic blocks in sheared but relatively un-metamorphosed argillite matrix which reflect the complicated history of the Franciscan. These rocks have been offset by movement along the San Andreas Fault System, which traverses the Santa Cruz Mountains prior to heading offshore in northwestern San Mateo County, on the other side of the Peninsula. Several northwest trending structurally controlled valleys dissect the San Francisco Peninsula, including the valley of Colma Creek, which contains the Project site. During the Quaternary Period of rising and falling sea level in response to patterns of global glaciation these valleys have been incised and then backfilled with sediment to form the suite of 1 WGCEP, 2002. PAGE 5-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS alluvial deposits that can be found today, including the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Along the bay margin, deposits of Holocene "Bay Mud" and marsh soils deposited during the past 11,000 years can be found. Marine terrace deposits consisting of sand, gravel and colluvial clay and slope debris and ravine fill materials consisting of gravelly clay, sandy clay, clayey gravel and similar soils occur in the area. Man-placed artificial fill over the old marsh deposits and Bay Mud are also present. Site Geology and Soils According to the USGS Map Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5'Quadrangle and parts of the Hunter's Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California (USGS Open-file Report 98-354, 1998) the site is underlain by the Pleistocene Colma Formation.Z The Colma Formation is described as friable, well-sorted, fine to medium-grained sand containing a few beds of sandy silt, clay, and gravel throughout most of the area, but also as sandy clay and silty sand in the Project vicinity. The site is likely underlain at depth by Franciscan Rocks similar to those exposed in nearby Mount San Bruno. Sandstone bedrock typical of the Franciscan Complex was penetrated in two boreholes at the site. Figure 5-1 presents a Geologic Map of the site and vicinity based on the 1998 USGS map of the area. A site geologic map was not completed for the geotechnical investigation, but a number of boreholes and cone penetration tests completed for the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Twining Laboratories, 2005) indicate subsurface conditions.3 Boreholes were not drilled inside the existing Levitz Furniture warehouse, but only around the perimeter and in parking lot areas. The boreholes typically encountered 1.5 to 3 inches of asphalt overlying zero to ten inches of aggregate base or aggregate subbase fill. Underlying the pavement section, fill soils consisting of sandy lean clay and sand extend from one to several feet below ground surface (BGS). Underlying native soils consist of a combination of sand, silty sand, clayey sand and sandy lean clay to depths of 10 to 43.5 feet, the deepest depth of drilling.3 Sandy soils were typically medium dense at shallow depths, becoming dense to very dense at depths below 10 to 15 feet BGS. Sandy lean clays were typically stiff to very stiff. The native materials encountered axe typical of sediments present in the Pleistocene Colma Formation. Groundwater Groundwater was penetrated in each of the nine boreholes completed at the site by Twining Laboratories (2005) at depths ranging from approximately 8.5 to 11.5 feet below ground surface during the subsurface investigation of November 15, 16 and 17, 2004. Groundwater levels at the site fluctuate during the year and are typically highest during the winter and spring rainy i USGS, 1998 s Twining Laboratories, Inc., 2005 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-3 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS season, therefore shallower groundwater levels may be encountered during construction activities. Landsliding and Slope Stability Slope steepness is generally the dominant factor governing slope stability, depending upon soil and bedrock conditions. Steep slopes greater than 50 percent are especially prone to landslides in areas of weak soil and/or bedrock. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (2005) indicated that the slope located between the site and the adjacent railroad tracks is potentially unstable due to surface erosion and cavities that have formed locally under the parking lot at the edge of slope. The slope steepness varies from 20 percent to 50 percent with slope heights varying from nil to as much as 10 feet in vertical height. No large-scale slope instabilities were noted in the geotechnical investigation. Expansive Soils Expansive soils experience volumetric changes (shrink and swell) seasonally due to changes in soil moisture content. The shrink/swell cycles can cause damage to foundations, concrete slabs- on-grade, and pavement sections. Testing of site soils for Expansion Index and Atterberg Limits was performed on several soil samples. Samples of soil from the boreholes at the site tested for expansion index were found to have a variable expansion potential ranging from low to high (Twining Laboratories, 2005). However, only two samples were tested for expansion index. Primary Seismic Hazards Primary seismic hazards are direct affects of an earthquake such as surface fault rupture. Surface Fault Rupture A number of active and potentially active faults are present in the region. According to criteria of the California Geological Survey, active faults are faults that have experienced surface rupture within the last 11,000 years (Holocene Period). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 initiated a program of mapping active and potentially active (surface rupture within the last 1.6 million years) faults. According to the Act, zones around active faults are delineated and development Projects within the Earthquake Fault Zones must include investigations to establish the location and age of any fault ruptures occurring on the property. The Act primarily covers structures for human occupancy, which includes commercial structures. Active and potentially active faults on the San Francisco Peninsula have undergone extensive investigation in the past. The California Geological Survey (formerly the California. Division of Mines and Geology) has established Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) boundaries for active faults in the region. According to the Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the San Francisco South Quadrangle PAGE 5-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR < ~. ~ i ~ -~1 y, ° ~ ~ ~ } , ~ ~ i -! ~ t i r • _ ~ 1 it s ~;~ ~ r df'fi t1 ~ ~ ~ ~ / t % ~~~ ~ j ~ ~ ' i ~ - i . f ~ ,~ ~ -t-- -_ _ , , --- ~_ ~ ._~_ ~ ~ ~' ~_'JY-.~- , n Ma_uui:dram:ni~m t. l~,.~~lr~ ~, 1 .rrr: raa „I m,nh Reference: t3onilla, 1998, Geologic Map of the 1000 ft 0 500m South San Francisco 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the 1 lusters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, US Geological Date, 08/03/05 ~~~~~~,~~~-~~--~~~ ~jeO~OgIC Map FIGURE Drawn. ~F ~_.~,.~, Home Depot EIR C ~~ J aPpid: wH 900 Dubuque Avenue Dwg. No. 250073Ge .. ''" ~°` ° ""' ~ ' °" ""° '° '~ """' ' ~ ~ ' "~ ~"~°' South San Francisco CA , CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS This page intentionall~~ left blank. PAGE 5-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR Explanation of Geologic Units and Symbols Htdrernr ('RP: LA('H(H S A VD II ~RAti.tiI(' (yJf 4taliaal f111 Fnw.i<cwl C'.nuplrx :wd:ua•cialed n?cks (1a}..ilt..;:uld, mrk h.tgmrnts, nre:mtc mnuer.:wd maul made debli:. Oaf d :\nifi i~il fill v-r tiJ:il i1Jt ~ 1.1.~ Saul too -w 1 lrtl Intrrh 11z 1 urLt nr m 1 lulr. h:vd ahzrz fez h uul nnazt - - n (.la}. silt.::md. It rk Irrgnrcuts. org:mlc mnncr.:nla ncm made debris. inhere ucJilicr~d.1 >Le.vul. (,enWOUI} wednml J:vk grac uilcre ti-c~h. placzJ ,tree lid:d Il:us. olitr Rrt} n, }zllauisl-~ broun u~hrrt nt,~ize:rtzl} ucathzreal, alai }ell,~u'L:h O.d> :\ndidsl lill.'~atiez:\nxnc:w shdlnnaWd. orwge Ir polota.,h Rea} uilcre lughl} ucatJlend. U:vk silty m swdy .~,il containing shill tiagmatu :Wd rvz mrect ~ F:I;k S;md<touz :old .+hac shd l.. ti;wJ.aanr Rensall} a,ttttininu mon than nco percent pntacium fel d.,~:u~. UI I .mdhdz d 7a,ats <Imtlx,sition :vtd anlzttue dzt,znd on the R~'logic tonnation unolcrd :wd t}p< of lar~d,h dc. v:il :\llut ium ~ }..ryn \lawln_~rpluc n,ek., \do.:tly mwd :wd silt but l.><:dly cont:ua. clay, Brut eh or bouldrn: 1{aril to font. tinr-m ct .vsr-Rr:drtrd k tustose, Rnei~asr, or Rrnrrally gl'a}~ ii, hrJlttl. RI'wllil,~~r III2lJlll,tlrllle I't><'k.~; cLvk gra}'. duk grctimsh gFa}'. or dark hllll.~ll Rla}. 111. BcJih rh~:lU' I t louw u ilv tech x,ncd wrditwl geuurd I x sc gr.q• xatlJ; t,t :dlt ~ sp ~etprntinz sulsia. ~ 1 ~wld, grnrl mld i•bblzs. I lard to ,ofi, uenrrdl} gl eouish Rra}, ,main: uual h.vfics of ulahbro :unl ,Gabar. (fin Ba}- nunl tirli unowt 1 to tine Idq I ia} ;mJ silt Ire;dl} zonawls ahzll ~ I<,In Fhemrd rocks 6asmznts, plant rmrams. and thm beds of .and. ~wal n• I:ugc t}~apncta> of hart n,ek w matrix of ;hcv yl n,zk. M1lamx Renzr:tlle coherent and time, hm soti in plazca.~. rspzTally uilcre mall lclcd. lluk grJ} uherc lical, tcllouish broun uiluc PI isk,rc7te weathered. Ihlit~rd np,~tlc from shale an 1 s:wdsnme of Frand.acut C'.~111p1 ex alld .,ert\:11 W Ir. ~ Al:uute ten ace dcpoail.: h l ll i L l ~ d fi i ou s omuRc to lz cel ucx {Redomiuuitl} liia .. onz ne Rra }z Rla} ~mld: iudud~ sllluvul gmtel :old c.~llucial clay. Osr tilcpe debris alld rmiue fill ~ &;d(Gllg CetltlaCt. Certain Stony..<ihy to ..<md} clap: h><:dly sihy to rla}cy .a:md or gmt cl: d o xrl straafird , t 5 n uti ll l h y . ou ., ranRr c mrl wn grJ}, urn a r r p }z z R'hzrr it ecrrlirs the Alerrai or Colma Fntmmion it is commonl} a -- :~pl,rOHI1I1ffie bedding t Dn1aCt, arpro Ytltla121)~ lxat Gil silty to cla}•ec sated, or Rracrl. (jz Cohna Ponnauon ® Hl,tizonta] hedeGng ~------~- Conwet, eoucGalGd In nonhuest and «-rmvl puts of area. fiiaMr urll .nnexl fine n• nx°dimn smd containing a tew beds of sutd} sill, clay, wul Rlarel. -}- \'Gnli; rl bedding ----- i.IOIIIaCI, I.rdah Opal i+r lI1tG1'IYd g In s:nlthca.,t pwt of atra. mo:9y sand} cla}~ and sihY s:m•.I: }zllou~ish or:wge k, Rea}. ~ Fault attitude (lu Seilunentat}~ depo.,iu, tmdiffrrentiatr,I Fault, CerlaUl y- Foliation --- Fatilt. arrrotcirnatal}' loGatzd h Ealilt rozka Lone t•f gougo. breraa. frartlvrd :old shr•JrrJ rock Jlotlg the ti:w ~`- FPIiTGI bCa' :\11dr~J: lallll. (Ifad:lUtnwl rl`Illarl utlll .~IIn„Ill It1111R 1'ttiks. I III11I~ '---'---'- F:uilt. Gl IIGGaIGIl poorly I:noutl. Age zxtald. uuo H~docrnr ~Ollll TERiL\RA-:\NDQC:\TfStK.\RS ----.-f -- Fatilt,amcealGa,yuatied pl ~snrouc :mil i'litxtinr t ~rGITI CaI lolnl ----- Fatilt interred QTm Alcrecd 14~mtaticn "'"' S1tG:u- planc~ I'n able lip Itllll .~:U Id. ,111, and rl:l}: Ilnn~•1 all i~~Illll~ 01 RI'Jt'e~. liunitc.:wd rolcartic ash, medium grJp to }cllrui.h or:ulRc. t r-1--r-r~ ~tnatior~ or grog, r on tiitdh Tor Of landslide sC:li'1) ----- 1FOG..Ittaclille :mil ~Ii~.un ~ IIJ Anticline. Gcn:nn --~-- :\rtliGline, arpro~cimately IoGatad --l~-- SynclirtG,approxinlatGlyle~KatGd --~-- ~lonocline. aprm~matal~ la;atzd pa1e osiosio5 ~~• °~~ Geologic Map Legend FIGUKt QUESTA `~`°° ~' Drawn: ~F .1__~_`~ Home Depot EIR 5-1 apptd: wH 900 Dubuque Avenue J '~°~°" '" "'°" "°'"°~~' "~°'"" ` `~""~°'~°~ South San Francisco CA Dwg. No. 250073Ge... r CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS This page intentionall~~ ]eft blank. PAGE 5-8 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS (1982), the proposed development is not located within an EFZ.4 The nearest EFZ is for the San Andreas Fault, located slightly more than 3 miles southwest of the site. An inactive pre-Quaternary fault, the Hillside fault (see Figure 1), is mapped as crossing the subject property on Geologic maps of the area.5 Based on the age of the fault being greater than 1.6 million years old (California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6, 1994), the State of California Geological Survey (CGS) does not consider the Hillside fault active or potentially active and does not require special studies to document the location of the fault on the Project site. Secondary Seismic Hazards The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1991 established a program of mapping of areas subject to the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. These seismically induced hazards are known as secondary seismic hazards. According to the California Geological Survey, the San Francisco South Quadrangle is currently in the process of being mapped. Other sources of information provide details on the potential for secondary seismic hazards in the area. Ground Shaking The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The Project site and region will likely be subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design life of the development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active seismic sources. According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a 62 percent probability that an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater will occur in the region between 2003 and 2032. ~ The intensity of ground shaking will vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking. The maximum intensity ground shaking expected to occur at the site would be a modified Mercalli intensity level of IX (violent) in response to an earthquake of equivalent magnitude to the 1906 earthquake (7.9) on the San Andreas fault. An earthquake of magnitude 6.8 on the Hayward fault would be expected to produce strong ground shaking equivalent to Mercalli intensity level VII.' a CDMG, 1982 s USGS, 1998 a WGCEP, 2002. ~ Association of Bay Axea Governments, www.abag.ca.gov , 2005. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-9 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Peak ground accelerations for the site with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50- year period (design basis ground motion) were determined by The Twining Laboratories (2005) using the FRISKSP computer program and the active and potentially active faults listed in the California Fault Parameters database. Four alternative methods were used to predict the design basis site accelerations with an average resultant value of 0.67 of the acceleration due to gravity s ~• Seismically Induced Liquefaction and Dynamic Densification Liquefaction and dynamic densification are conditions that can result from seismically induced ground shaking. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, cohesionless soil into a viscous liquid as a result of ground shaking. Dynamic densification (seismic settlement) occurs in dry cohesionless soil during seismic shaking and can result in ground surface settlement during earthquakes. Liquefaction and dynamic densification analyses were conducted as part of the Geotechnical Investigation. Analysis was performed using the LIQUEFY2 computer software. Soil properties as determined in subsurface investigations and laboratory testing were used in the analysis. A design basis earthquake acceleration of 0.67 g and a design earthquake magnitude of 7.9 were used in the analysis. The design earthquake was based on the magnitude of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake that occurred on the San Andreas fault. A groundwater depth of 8.5 feet, based on groundwater levels in boreholes completed in November 2004, was used in the analysis. The analysis indicated that liquefaction would not occur, but dynamic densification of approximately 0.33 inches could occur during the design level earthquake. Based on the results of settlement analysis, Twining concluded that a differential seismic settlement of 0.167 inches could occur across the proposed building pad. Seismically Induced Landslides Seismically induced slope failure is another secondary seismic hazard. During earthquake induced ground shaking, landslides and debris flows can form on unstable slopes. The only slopes present on the site are located along the eastern side between the parking lot/existing building and the railroad tracks. This slope shows evidence of erosion and cavitation under adjacent existing pavements caused by poor drainage conditions. The Geotechnical Investigation Report did not discuss the potential for seismically induced landslides. However, based on the types of soil present, and existing conditions of the slopes, the hazard of seismically induced landsliding is considered low. a Twining Laboratories Inc., 2005. ~ Twining Laboratories Inc., 2005. PAGE 5-10 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is considered a significant adverse impact. The potential geologic, soils, and seismic effects of the proposed Project can be considered from two points of view: (1) construction impacts; and, (2) geologic hazards to people or structures. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of construction impacts is whether construction of the Project will create unstable geologic conditions that would last beyond the short-term construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is based on the degree to which the site geology could produce hazards to people or structures from earthquakes, ground shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, or other geologic hazards, features or events. According to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in: 1. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving 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 known fault; 2. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking; 3. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and seismic-induced landslides; 4. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides; 5. Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or that would become unstable as a result of the Project) and which could potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; 6. The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving volcanic hazards; 7. Development located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life and property; HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-1 1 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS 8. The loss of topsoil or development in an area of erodible soils. 9. Development in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; 10. The loss of Mineral Resources important to the State of California or the local economy; 11. The alteration or destruction of a unique geological feature. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Surface Fault Rupture According to the latest available maps, the site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of the area show the Hillside fault as crossing the subject property, but this fault is not considered active or potentially active, with an estimated age of most recent movement greater than 1.6 million years ago. The potential impact of surface fault rupture is considered less than significant. Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Impact 5-1 Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed development would be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design life. Strong to violent seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially significant impact.. Mitigation Measure 5-1a Compliance with California Building Code. Project development shall meet requirements of the California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards will reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground shaking. PAGE 5-12 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure 5-1b Mitigation Measure 5-1c Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. The structural engineering design shall incorporate seismic parameters as outlined in the preliminary geotechnical engineering investigation report and from the California Building Code as summarized below. The Ciry's Chief Building Official may require a Final Geotechnical Engineering Report. The applicant's plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Building Official. Seismic Zone 4 Soil Profile Type SD Seismic Source Type B Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Near Source Acceleration Factor, Na 1.16 Near Source Velocity Factor, Nv 1.53 Seismic Acceleration Coefficient, Ca Ca = 0.51 Seismic Velocity Coefficient, Cv Cv = 0.98 Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground shaking to a level of Zess than signiftcant. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-13 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Seismically Induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction, Densification, Differential Settlement, and Landslides Impact 5-2. Liquefaction, Dynamic Densification and Differential Settlement. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation by Twining Laboratories concluded that site soils are not likely to be subject to the affects of liquefaction such as sand boils and bearing capacity loss. Dynamic densification of dry surface soils is anticipated to result in up to 0.33 inches of seismically induced settlement. The dynamic densification may result in differential settlements of 0.167 inches over a distance of 50 feet. The anticipated dynamic densification and differential settlement, which could result in moderate structural damage without mitigation, is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5-2a Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Registered Structural Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. Structures shall be designed to minimize the affects of the anticipated seismic settlements. The report and recommendations shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Building Official. Mitigation Measure 5-2b Obtain a building permit and complete final design review. The Project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. All plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Building Official. Conformity with these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact related to seismic ground shaking to a level of less than significant. PAGE 5-14 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Seismically Induced Landslides No landslides are mapped across the property and most of the site is gently sloping. The slope adjacent to the railroad tracks is not expected to fail in the event of earthquake induced ground shaking. The impact of seismically induced landslides is considered a less than significant impact. UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC MATERIALS Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or could become unstable as a result of the Project. Impact 5-3 Unstable Soils. Potentially compressible soils are present near the anticipated depths of the foundations for the proposed building. Loose soils will be .generated as a result of the removal of existing improvements. Fill soils of unknown quality are present in the proposed building and parking areas. Near surface soils have a high potential for expansion and contraction during seasonal moisture fluctuations. The near surface soils are also corrosive in nature and may affect concrete and steel placed in contact with them. Groundwater is present at shallow depths, less than 10 feet below ground surface, and could impact excavations such as utility trenches. The slope at the southeastern property boundary may be destabilized during site grading activities. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5-3 Compliance with recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report prepared by Twining Laboratories. The Geotechnical consultant recommended remedial grading during site construction activities to provide foundation support for the proposed structure, dewatering for deeper excavations, and repair and maintenance for the existing slope. As recommended in the Preliminary report, additional subsurface investigation shall be performed as necessary to fully delineate any areas of potentially unstable soils, such as under the existing building, which were not investigated during the Preliminary Investigation. All site preparation and grading shall be performed in accordance with recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and a Grading Plan reviewed and approved by City of South San Francisco Building Official. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review all Plans for the Project and shall make supplemental recommendations as necessary to stabilize potentially unstable soils. All site preparation and grading, foundations, pavement section construction and subsurface drainage measures shall be performed under the observations and testing of the Project Geotechnical Engineer or his/her representative. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-1 S CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS In accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan, any new slopes greater than 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. All site preparation and grading shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Grading Plan reviewed and approved by the City of South San Francisco. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of unstable or potentially unstable soils to less than significant. VOLCANIC HAZARDS No active volcanic areas are located in the San Francisco Bay or Northern California region that could potentially impact the Project site. No Impact. EXPANSIVE SOILS Impact 5-4 Expansive Soils. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, potentially expansive clay soils were encountered. Expansive clay soils may shrink and swell, resulting in damaged foundations, concrete slabs, pavements and other improvements. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5-4 Design and Construction in Accordance with Geotechnical Investigation. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommended mitigation measures for expansive clay soils. The supplemental geotechnical investigation shall identify the measures to be used to prevent damage to site improvements by expansive soils and Project plans shall incorporate the recommendations, and Potential measures fox control of expansive clay soils include the following: a) Replacing clayey soils underlying foundations and concrete slabs with select non-expansive structural fill. Recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer for the depth of fill and specifications for the fill material shall be implemented. b) Treating site soils with lime to reduce the expansion potential and increase the strength. Testing shall be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer to establish the required concentration of lime in the soil to reduce soil expansion to an acceptable level. PAGE 5-16 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS c) Grade around structures to assure positive drainage away from structures. d) Implement recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer to prevent or minimize the potential for structural damage from expansive clay soils. All grading and improvement plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco Building Official. Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the impact of potentially expansive soils to less than significant. SOIL EROSION Impact 5-5 Soil Erosion. The Project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and pavements would expose underlying soil to the elements. Excavation of soil fox construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed during site grading would be subject to erosion during storm events. Soils exposed on the existing slope located at the eastern edge of the site are also subject to soil erosion and shows evidence of erosion. Grading would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities. Mitigation Measure 5-5a Erosion Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit an Erosion Control Plan to the City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include winterization, dust control, erosion control and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include but not be limited to, locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 5-1 7 CHAPTER 5: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's Erosion Control Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Ciry of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and City Engineer. The Ciry of South San Francisco Department of Public Works staff and/or representatives shall be required to inspect the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the SSFMC Grading Ordinance and approved plans, and require that the project applicant immediately correct any violations. Mitigation Measure 5-5b Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08- DW~. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant's SWPPP shall be subject to the review and approval of the Ciry of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. SEPTIC SYSTEMS A sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are not required at the site. No impact. LOSS OF MINERAL RESOURCES No mineral resources important to the State of California would be impacted by the Project. No Impact. UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURE No unique geologic features will be impacted by the proposed Project. No Impact. PAGE 5-18 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 6.1 INTRODUCTION A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either 1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazards to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed. Hazardous waste (a subset of hazardous material) refers to hazardous material that is to be abandoned, discarded or recycled. The following section describes the history of hazardous materials at the site, and the threat to future occupants and the surrounding environment resulting from the proposed development. The information presented below was drawn from several sources of data including appendices: (1) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments for the property completed by ATC Associates Inc. (March 12, 1999 and December 4, 2001); (2) Report of Geophysical Survey and Limited Subsurface Investigation, Addendum to Initial Phase 1 Report (September 27, 2001); (3) Environmental Site Assessment for the property completed by Environ International Corporation (January 6, 2005); (4) Environmental Data Resources Incorporated Radius Map with Geocheck database search (September 05, 2001 and October 06, 2004); (5) Report on Asbestos Survey completed on the existing Levitz Furniture Building (May 7, 1999); (6) Review of Historical Topographic Maps Online (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/histopo/); (7) Review of the East of 101 Area Plan of the City of South San Francisco, as well as all other applicable ordinances and regulations; (8) Development Plan Sheets prepared for Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. by Greenberg Farrow Architects; (9) Review of the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department website, (http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/home.html); (10) personal communication with San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco officials; and (11) a site visit by Questa Engineering Staff on July 14, 2005. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-1 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 6.2 SETTING A history of the site was documented from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) prepared by Environ International Corporation (2005), as well as independent review of historic maps. More recent information was obtained from personal communication with county and city officials, planning documentation, and a site visit on July 14, 2005. One of the earliest maps of the area is the 1896 topographic quadrangle map of the site. This map shows a road along the present alignment of the Bayshore Freeway, but no buildings in the vicinity of the current property. The railroad is shown to terminate approximately 1000 feet southwest of the site. A 1915 topographic map of the area shows the site vicinity developed, with six streets shown west of the current location of the Highway 101 freeway, in a similar alignment to current streets. A crossroad is shown to extend to the railroad line northeast of the property, while the railroad alignment is shown in the current configuration. According to the Phase 1 ESA completed for the property, Pacific Car & Equipment occupied the site from 1911 until at least 1925. Mutual Engineering Company and National Advertising Company later occupied the property. These businesses were apparently involved in the perfume and cosmetics industry from the late 1920's until the 1950's. Building department records of the City of South San Francisco document demolition of a building associated with the France Laboratory, Inc., and partial demolition of another building associated with Empire Advertising in 1956. Following demolition, new warehouse and office buildings were constructed on the property for Sperry Hutchinson & Company, whom occupied the property until Levitz became the occupant in 1971. Since 1971, Levitz Furniture has used the property as a furniture warehouse and showroom. Existing buildings on the property include the original 1957 structure and a newer structure constructed between 1968 and 1977 adjoined to the older structure. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Overview Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) for the Levitz Furniture Store at 900 Dubuque Avenue were completed to disclose any visible or invisible environmental hazards to the buyer, and by inference and liability to future occupants and visitors to the property. These hazards would result from the history of hazardous materials and environmental contaminants on the property, as well as from nearby properties. The Phase 1 ESA is intended to identify these hazards to the buyer, as well as provide recommendations for fixture work or mitigations to remediate or further investigate the presence of any potential environmental hazards to the property buyer and future occupants. The Phase 1 ESA reports included a literature review, records review, site reconnaissance, and interviews with knowledgeable parties. The Phase 1 ESA completed by Environ International Corporation Inc. (Environ) in 2005 summarized the results of previous investigations. This report indicated primary hazards resulting from (1) two former underground fizel storage tanks, and (2) possible hazardous building materials, including asbestos containing material and possible lead based paint. The Phase 1 ESA indicated the property is not included in an environmental database and that the PAGE 6-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) does not have any files on the property'. The report did identify several nearby sites with potential soil and groundwater contamination, but due to distance, direction, or regulatory status these sites were not considered likely to have adversely impacted the subject property or to represent a continuing environmental hazard to the proposed development. Underground Storage Tanks According to the Phase 1 ESA completed by ATC and dated December 4, 2001, two partially buried fuel oil tanks constructed of steel were located in the area underneath the northeast portion of the present day Levitz Furniture showroom. These tanks are shown on Sanborn Maps of the property from 1925 and 1950, but not on a map dated 1956. The maps seem to indicate that the tanks were removed between 1950 and 1956, although no record of the removal or abandonment in place of these tanks was found. In 2001, a geophysical survey and subsurface investigation was completed to identify any remains from these tanks, including any soil contamination. The investigation report by ATC in 2001 concluded that two ground penetrating radar survey anomalies of 4 feet by 7 feet and 4 feet by 12 feet in area were likely concrete slabs remaining from these tanks. Soil samples collected from these locations at depths of approximately four feet were analyzed for TPH-gas, BTEX, MTBE, as well as characteristics of fuel oil. According to the report no TPH-gas, BTEX, or MTBE was found in the samples, but 1.9 mg/kg of unidentifiable hydrocarbons was detected. Further analysis by the chromatogram identified the hydrocarbon as relatively heavy, close to the motor oil range, but dissimilar. This could be residue of fuel formerly stored in tanks at the site, or could be from some other source. According to ATC, the low concentration of the hydrocarbon "may be due to non anthropogenic sources and does not appear to be of significant concern for the property." The Phase 1 Investigation by ATC associates dated December 4, 2001 recommended no further action. Chemicals Of Concern Chemicals of concern are specific chemicals or classes of hazardous materials known to have been used, or which have been detected, at the site and which could possibly pose an environmental hazard. These chemicals or materials were identified in the Phase 1 ESA for the site, and were checked during the site reconnaissance, as well as through calls to agencies involved with the site. Sources of these chemicals are directly related to past uses of the site, especially substances associated with furniture warehousing and selling. Chemicals have also been concentrated in building materials. The particular building materials used at a site are a product of both the age of the structure, as well as the designed use. As mentioned in the previous section, chemicals identified with the partially buried tanks at the site are hydrocarbons ' SMCEHD, August 2, 2005 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-3 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS and records indicate the tanks were used to store fuel oils. The hazard from these chemicals was not considered to pose a significant hazard based on testing results. Another class of chemicals is associated with cleaning agents and other materials used to maintain the property. These chemicals include ammonia, sodium hypochlorite (bleach), oxidizers, abrasives, and other substances that pose a definite threat to the environment, but which are so common as to be mainly ignored unless they are spilled or catch on fire. Cleaning agents at Levitz Furniture were apparently stored in a janitorial closet. Records of the Phase 1 ESA and site reconnaissance indicate no significant staining on the concrete flooring in this area and no continuing chemical waste storage on the premises. Solid waste from the Levitz Furniture facility was disposed of in a dumpster located on the north side of the building and east of the loading dock. No significant staining or continuing waste storage was noted in this area. A particularly hazardous class of chemicals that are a known carcinogen are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These chemicals are associated with electrical transformers where a considerable volume may be stored. According to the 2001 Phase 1 ESA, two transformers mounted on concrete pads were observed on the property, including one transformer located at the north end of the existing parking area. According to the Phase 1 ESA, these transformers are maintained by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and were not labeled with regard to PCB content; no significant staining was observed on the transformer or adjacent concrete pad that would indicate leaking. Results were used to conclude that the transformers were not an immediate concern or hazard. However, ATC concluded that the transformers should be considered contaminated by PCB and protected from damage. Any future removal or modifications of these transformers would need to be competed by PG&E. Another source of potential PCB contamination are fluorescent light fixtures manufactured prior to about 1979. These were observed inside the warehouse facility. As the site was not specifically used for the storage or use of hazardous materials, the presence of these materials is incidental. However, such incidental use of chemicals is not limited to the inside of the building and to storage containers, but is also associated with the actual building materials. The building materials of particular concern are asbestos containing building materials and lead based paint. An asbestos survey on the property was completed by ATC in 1999. According to the survey report, minor asbestos was discovered in drywall and associated joint compound, as well as two types of vinyl floor file and sheet flooring mastic. Based on these results ATC recommended that prior to demolition or renovation any untested materials be tested per local, state, and federal regulations. Lead based paint was not analyzed for, but according to ATC may be present since structures date to the 1950s, an era when lead based paint was still used extensively. According to the Phase 1 ESA, other hazards such as radon, explosives, emission of air contaminants from the existing facility, and accumulation of contaminated wastewater PAGE 6-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS discharges were not considered significant. Aseptic system or wells are not known to be present on the property. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) does not include the property in either the Hazardous Materials Inventory or Site Remediation Database. The Hazardous Material Inventory is a database with files on sites that use or generate hazardous waste, or have underground storage tanks. The Site Remediation Database is a database of sites that are being remediated for soil contamination, groundwater contamination, or disposal of hazardous materials from the site. Off-Site Sources Of Contamination The property proposed for development was not included on any of the lists cited below. However, several nearby sites are contained in environmental databases, and were therefore considered as potential off-site sources of contamination to the property. The Phase 1 ESA included an investigation of these site records and the threat to the subject property. The most recent database search by Environmental Data Resources (EDR) dated October 6, 2004, revealed several nearby sites of concern that are located less than one-eighth of a mile from the proposed development. The threat to the proposed development from these sites is from contamination migrating onto the subject property. The result would be contamination that is likely to impact the proposed development. Contaminants could migrate through a variety of media, including air, soil and groundwater. The most transient contaminant is air pollution. Since the site is not in close proximity to a major factory emitter, or other source, small-scale emissions from nearby businesses may be considered insignificant compared to regional pollution from sources such as the adjacent Bayshore Freeway. Less transient are soil and groundwater contamination. The mobility of contamination within the soil depends in large part upon the solubility of the contaminant in water and the rate of groundwater flow through the soil. Groundwater flow is much less rapid than surface flow. However, where groundwater is shallow and a source of contamination penetrates into the aquifer then contamination may travel a considerable distance. The greatest threat to the property is from sites located immediately up- slope or up gradient from the site; soil and groundwater contamination could most easily flow downhill onto the property from these sites. Using these basic criteria the list of sites that could potentially contaminate the subject property can be reduced. In the Phase 1 ESA, only sites within one-quarter mile and up gradient of the site were considered to pose a significant potential risk to the proposed development. Based on these criteria the Phase 1 ESA narrowed down the list of area properties potentially impacting the site. These are discussed below. The EDR report included a records search of more than thirty different federal, state and local databases. Only the databases containing sites most likely to impact the proposed development are mentioned here. The first database searched was the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). CERCLIS sites are HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-5 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS contained in the EPA's Superfund database system that contains a National Priority List (NPL), as well as 30,000 other sites that may be contaminated with hazardous substances and that are potentially eligible for federal cleanup funds. Sites where no further remedial action is planned (NFRAP) are called CERC-NFRAP sites. There are two CERC-NFRAP facilities listed within 1 /8 mile of the property, however, since no further action was recommended at these sites it can be assumed that these sites do not pose a continuing threat to the subject property. Aside from the CERC-NFRAP sites, the EDR report identified three other nearby properties that meet primary criteria for causing potential contamination to the subject property. These sites are less than one-eighth mile from the site, at equal or higher elevation, and are contained in both the leaking underground storage tank database (LUST) and CORTESE list, a California State database of sites with suspected or known contamination. These sites axe a UNOCAL Service Station at 901 Airport Boulevard, the Shell Oil Company Service Station site at 899 Airport Boulevard, and the Oyster Point Inter Area on Oyster Point Boulevard. Two of the sites are located on Airport Boulevard and across the Bayshore Freeway from the site. It is unlikely that contamination would have penetrated underneath the freeway at this location. The other site, located along Oyster Point Boulevard, is shown to drain toward the northeast and is therefore considered unlikely to drain across the railroad tracks that separate the property from the proposed development site. The Phase 1 ESA concluded that due to distance, direction, or regulatory status these sites were not considered likely to have spread contamination onto the property or to represent a continuing threat. Current Contamination Levels and Health Risks Contaminant levels may be assessed from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments. Environmental sampling and analytical testing at the site is limited to testing for hydrocarbons fxam samples collected at the locations of the former storage tanks at approximately four feet below the ground surface (BGS). These results indicate only a very low level (1.9 mg/kg) of an unidentified hydrocarbon similar to motor oil. Based on the Phase 1 reports there is no evidence for any significant subsurface soil or groundwater contamination. Other contamination identified as impacting the site is primarily from building materials, as well as from existing transformers and other utilities. Health risk from these potential contaminants is limited by the storage condition of these materials. However, the proposed development plan will require demolition of the site at which time chemicals could become mobile unless necessary precautions and action plans are put into place. Following demolition and removal of any contaminated materials from the site the risk to future visitors is likely limited. Exposure to future chemicals on the site is likely to be a greater concern than from any residual contamination from the former facility. No health based risk assessment has been undertaken for the site, likely since the site is not in any environmental database or recorded in San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Database. No further investigation was recommended in the Phase 1 ESA for the property, but consideration in regard to specific details of the proposed development was not considered. The level of contamination is expected to remain unchanged in the subsurface provided that sediment and debris control measures are PAGE 6-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS maintained around catch basins and other entry pathways into the subsurface. Hazardous materials will be removed from the site during and following demolition. Following removal of the concrete slab prior to new grading, local staining of soil and contamination not previously detected may also be found. Based on results of the Phase 1 ESA, the extent of any contamination is likely to be very low. Risk of exposure to future occupants will also be very low since most of the site will be paved and the subsurface will remain undeveloped. The greatest risk of exposure from any residual contamination would be to workers during site grading and construction. These hazards are in addition to the normal hazards associated with any large construction projects. The proposed development does not include development of underlying groundwater or use of site soils, except where local soils will be graded and used as engineered fill, and latex where some of these soils could potentially be recycled for use as landscape fill. Regulatory Setting Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department. The department administers several programs to regulate and monitor the use of hazardous materials, including the hazardous materials business plan program, hazardous waste generator program, California accidental release program, underground storage tank program, groundwater protection program, and the stormwater pollution prevention program. 'T'hese programs, which are mandated by State and Federal Laws, are aimed at protecting public health and the environment. The Hazardous Materials Business plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by businesses in accordance with both state and federal laws. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was started in 1984 when the State of California DTSC authorized the Health Department to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. The groundwater protection program is funded wholly or in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to the County of San Mateo. In conjunction with these laws the underground storage tank program was created to regulate the chief source of underground contamination, leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). At the federal level, the chief regulator is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX for Northern California. At the State level, the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) is chiefly responsible for regulation, handling, use, and disposal of toxic materials. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates discharge of potentially hazardous materials to waterways and aquifers, as well as stormwater protection through the general permit, which must be obtained for any grading projects exceeding one acre, including the proposed project. The local branch of the Water Board is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has also established environmental screening guidelines for commercial HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-7 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS developments (RWQCB, 2003). According to the publication, the environmental screening levels (ESL's) are to be used as Tier 1 guidelines: "Use of the ESLs and this document in general is intended to be entirely optional on the part of the regulated facility and subject to the approval of the case manager in the overseeing regulatory agency. The presence of a chemical at concentrations in excess of an ESL does not necessarily indicate that adverse impacts to human health or the environment are occurring; this simply indicates that a potential for adverse risk may exist and that additional evaluation is warranted. ESLs presented for chemicals that are known to be highly biodegradable in the environment may in particular be overly conservative for use as final cleanup levels (e.g., many petroleum-related compounds). Use of the ESLs as cleanup levels should be evaluated in view of the overall site investigation results and the cost/benefit of performing a more site-specific risk assessment." Regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites with these sources of contamination, as well as potential sources of contamination, such as underground fuel tanks. Databases with information on hazardous materials sites include the Federal Superfund list started through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the USEPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking underground storage tank information system (LUST), the Cortese list, and many others. These databases were searched for the Phase 1 ESA. Air pollution is regulated through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). These programs and regulations are primarily intended to mitigate for environmental contamination including hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit public exposure to harmful chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials and from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration at both the Federal Level (OSHA) and the state level (CAL- OSHA). Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws address risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations outlined in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the Federal Code of Regulations, Title 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking or placarding; handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel; and registration of highly hazardous material transport. PAGE 6-8 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines: 1) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Would the Project 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? 3) Would the Project produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Would the Project 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? 5) Would the Project be 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? 6) 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? ~ Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Would the Project 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? HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-9 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT Impact 6-1 Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed Home Depot complex, including parking, warehousing, delivery, and shopping facilities is designed for commercial retail. Retail sales items includes many potentially hazardous products, including paints, thinners, solvents, preservatives, propane gas (for both sale and use in forklifts), and large potentially flammable items, such as lumber. These items will be routinely delivered to the facility, transported to and from the site by consumers (generally in small quantities), and when not sold or warehoused must be transported from the site for disposal or return to the manufacturer. Transport will be concentrated along Dubuque Avenue and onto the Bayshore Freeway. The risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6-1a Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. In accordance with State law and local regulations, businesses occupying the development must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The HMBP must include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities axe 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. Retail establishments, such as the Home Deport, are normally required by law to report non-retail chemical storage of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials may include paints, solvents, batteries, aerosol cans, compressed gas cylinders, asbestos containing materials, silica gels, lubricating oils, and fuels used to power generators and other mechanical equipment, as well as any other chemicals considered hazardous by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, Department of Toxic Substances PAGE 6-10 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Control, and other applicable regulators. Home Depot is also responsible for reporting "off spec" materials. These axe materials that were not sold and axe not able to be returned to the manufacturer. Home Depot is responsible for the safe disposal of these materials, which shall be additionally reported and included in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development must submit a HMBP prior to the start of operations, and must review and update the entire HMBP at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage, and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business annually to verify that the HMBP is complete and accurate. Prior to the final inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the County approved HMBP to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. Mitigation Measure 6-1b Compliance with US Department of Transportation, State of California and local laws, ordinances and procedures for transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact of routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of Zess than significant. Impact 6-2 Accidental Hazardous Materials Release. Mitigations for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction are included in Mitigation Measure 7-2a, implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), presented in the hydrology section of this environmental impact report. This mitigation includes implementation of Best Management Practices for preventing the discharge of construction-related pollutants such as diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, paint, concrete, etc. to the environment. However, these measures provide no mitigation for the accidental release of HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-11 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS hazardous materials during demolition of the existing facilities. Hazardous materials to be encountered include asbestos containing building materials and possible lead based paint. Demolition presents a primary hazard to workers through inhalation of dust, dermal absorption, and ingestion of hazardous materials. Following the completion of construction; warehousing, transport, and vending operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of potentially hazardous materials. The greatest risk is likely from a spill into the storm drain system. These hazards are a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6-2a Demolition Plan and Permitting. Prior to demolition of any buildings or structures the applicant shall obtain a Demolition Permit from the City of South San Francisco Building Division. The Demolition Plan shall include measures ensuring safe demolition of existing buildings and structures. The Plan shall include measures to control asbestos dust control and incorporate site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials. The Demolition Plan shall address both on-site worker protection and off-site resident and worker protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials are required to be tested for contaminant concentrations and are required to be disposed of at appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and asbestos containing building materials are required to be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring fox dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. For the impact of flaking and peeling lead based paint, the requirements of Tide 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1 (T8 CCR 1532.1) must be followed. These requirements include but are not limited to the following: • Loose and peeling lead-containing paint should be removed prior to building demolition. Workers conducting removal of lead paint must receive training in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Lead-containing paint removal shall be designed by a DHS certified lead project designer, project monitor or supervisor. PAGE 6-12 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • Preparation of a written Lead Compliance Plan that meets the requirements of the lead construction standard by any contractor that impacts leads coatings. • Workers conducting removal of lead paint must be certified by DHS in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Workers that may be exposed above the Action Level must have blood lead levels tested prior to commencement of lead work and at least quarterly thereafter for the duration of the project. Workers that are terminated from the project should have their blood lead levels tested within 24 hours of termination. • A written exposure assessment must be prepared in accordance with T8 CCR 1532.1. • Any amount of lead waste generated, including painted building components, must be characterized for proper disposal in accordance with Title 22, Section 66261.24. Prior to the issuance of the Demolition Permit by the City of South San Francisco, the applicant shall provide a copy of the BAAQMD Permit and Compliance Plan to the City of South San Francisco Building Official. Mitigation Measure 6-2b California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP). The applicant shall check State and Federal lists of regulated substances for chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. This list is available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD). Businesses are responsible for determining which list to use in consultation with SMCEHD. Should the applicant's business qualify for the program, as determined in consultation with SMCEHD, the applicant must complete a Ca1ARP registration form listing all regulated substances and submit it to the SMCEHD. Following registration of the regulated substances they shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must develop and implement a Risk Management Plan. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-13 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for: keeping employees and customers safe; handling regulated substances; training staff; maintaining equipment; checking that substances are stored safely; and responding to an accidental release. Prior to Final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a copy of the Risk Management Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. Mitigation Measure 6-2c Employee Training. The applicant shall develop and implement an Employee Training Plan covering spill prevention, cleanup, and notification procedures in accordance with OSHA and CAL OSHA. The operation of the store will require having sufficient cleanup materials such as spill kits, absorbent rags, sand, etc. available to staff for containing and cleaning up spills and leaks, as well as procedures for proper disposal of contaminated materials. Prior to the Final Inspection the applicant shall provide a copy of the Employee Training Plan to the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshall. The Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of accidental releases of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS NEAR SCHOOLS The nearest registered school or daycare facility is the Martin School located at 35 School Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles from the site. There are also two day care centers located on Gateway Blvd, approximately 500 yards from the site. This distance of greater than one-quarter mile from these sites and the relative isolation of the site between Highway 101 and the railroad tracks results in the potential impact to schools from hazardous emissions or accidental upset to be considered Zess than significant. PAGE 6-14 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES According to the most recent Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment completed for the property and dated January 6, 2005, the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There is no reported evidence of hazardous materials at the site and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department reports the site is not on record as a hazardous waste site. No impact to the project. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN Impact 6-3 Potential Interference with Emergency Response Plan. The proposed development is not expected to physically interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. While traffic will be increased along Dubuque Avenue it is not anticipated to reduce response times. Discussion of specific traffic and transportation impacts resulting from the proposed Project are also discussed in the Traffic and Transportation Section of this DEIR. Demand for fire protection and emergency medical services will also increase at the site since the proposed facility is designed to accommodate more visitors and workers than the former Levitz Furniture facility. In addition, Project construction could result in a reduction of response times, due to large construction equipment and reduced access to the site and surrounding areas. Discussion of specific traffic and transportation impacts resulting from the proposed development are also discussed in the Traffic and Transportation Section of this DEIR. Interference with the local Emergency Response Plan would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6-3 Fire Department Review. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department is required to review construction plans for roadway modifications and shall establish temporary alternative emergency routes necessary for the duration of the Project construction. The applicant shall design the aisleways and driveways to meet the SSFMC and Uniform Building Code requirements for emergency access. The on-site circulation system shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Chief Planner in consultation with the City Engineer and Fire Marshall. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the impact of development to any emergency response or evacuation plan to a level of less than significant. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 6-15 CHAPTER 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Airport Land Use Plan While the proposed Project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport, it would .have a less than signif2cant impact in terms of the Plan's policies. Private Airstrip The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would thereby not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the area. As such, the Project will have no impact. Wildland Fires and Wetlands The Project site is not located adjacent to any residences, and is not within the vicinity of a wetlands. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the safety of people or structures in regards to potential loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. PAGE 6-16 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 7.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents an evaluation of potential Project impacts to hydrology and water quality. The discussion is based on the review of several reports and documents as well as site visits conducted on July 12 and July 25, 2005 by Questa Engineering, and correspondence with the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Public Works Department. The various reports and documents reviewed include: (1) Project Description; (2) Conceptual Plans prepared by Greenberg Farrow Architecture Engineering Development (April 29, 2005); (3) ALTA Land Title Survey prepared by Lars Andersen and Associates (March 9, 2005); (4) Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by The Twining Laboratories, Inc. Qanuary 11, 2005); and (5) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Levitz Furniture Store, prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation Qanuary 6, 2005). 7.2 SETTING CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY The Project site is located in a relatively flat to gently sloping industrial area east of Highway 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay is located approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the site. The regional climate is typical of the San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during the months of November through March with an average annual precipitation of 20 inches. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 74 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer to a low of 42 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter.' The Project site and surrounding area is largely developed with light industrial, research, retail, warehousing, office, and hotel land uses. Approximately 89 percent of the 7.62-acre Project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. A 156,637 square foot warehouse-type building is situated at the southern end of the property, with paved parking and loading areas occupying most of the remainder of the site. Railroad tracks parallel the eastern boundary of the property. The site ground surface is generally level and slopes gently (approximately one percent) to the ~ Western Regional Climate Center, 2005 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-1 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY northeast towards the railroad tracks; a slope is present at the eastern edge of the property adjacent to the tracks. Ground elevations range from approximately 17 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the northeast corner of the property to 24 feet above MSL in the southwest corner of the property. SURFACE HYDROLOGY The Project site is located on the fringe of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 2,000 feet from Bay waters. Neighboring properties are generally located south of the Project site, and drain southward to Colma Creek, an urbanized flood control channel that discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. However, unlike other properties in the vicinity, the Project site is not included in the Colma Creek watershed; instead, storm drains near the northern boundary of the site carry storm water eastward to the Bay at Oyster Cove. Storm water runoff from the site begins as overland sheet flow across the roof of the building and the paved parking lot. The overall drainage system is shown on Figure 7-1. One storm drain drop inlet currently exists on the Project site; it is located inside the parking lot near the east entrance to the property from Dubuque Avenue and collects approximately one-half of the Project site runoff. According to the Utilities Plan for the City of South San Francisco, the size of the storm drain line is unknown, however the Conceptual Utilities Plan by Greenberg Farrow and the ALTA Survey by Lars Andersen and Associates indicate that the pipe is 24 inches in diameter at the drop inlet. The other half of the storm water runoff from the Project site runs as sheet flow and in a shallow pavement ditch towards the southeast corner of the property, where it drains off of the pavement through small drainage pipes in the curb onto the adjacent slope and ultimately into the soil and gravel beside the railroad tracks. Here the runoff ponds and, during larger storms, flows north towards a drop inlet that is currently clogged with soil, gravel, and debris. This drop inlet was originally intended to connect via a separate trunk line to the Oyster Cove storm drain line. However, it is unknown how much water flows into the municipal system through this clogged inlet. It appears that most of the storm runoff ponds and infiltrates into the soil beside the railroad tracks and never reaches the Oyster Cove drain pipe; a gully with long green grasses has formed along the toe of slope adjacent to the railroad tracks. GROUNDWATER The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the Project site is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the basin represent the primary water-bearing strata and are comprised of dune sands, the Colma Formation, and the Merced Formation. While groundwater quality in the basin is generally in compliance with PAGE 7-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR ~~ ~ t9 ° a~ ~° Q U W h ~+ ~ ~ p ,/~ V/ U ~ ~- N V Q O C `~ ~ 11 = ~ C /~ V ~ _ ~ `\ O `Z ~ o ~ Q ~v ~ r ~ ~ (~ NJ OYSTER P ~ ~C W ~ ' W~~~ O a ? cn °~' 6 ~ ~~ ~~ Q oNo 0 0 O ~ ~a ~ >w d ~~~W U d ~ ~~ ~ ~ A ~ _ a Q r ~ ~ ~ O ~ N 4J ~ ~ L a E H ~~ _ • .---+ U W ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ O ofl r^~ a C W ~ W 6J H ~ W ~ .~. ~ Q 2W _ .u ~ ~ 0 ~ - U / 2 ° OxZ Z ~ m I QA ~ 1 z ~ C ~ N ~~ ~ rTt ~ o N ^ N ~ 4..r X m ~ z y O ~, ' ' p a x w ~' U 3 ~ t a~ v O ~ `~ a -o ~ w w ~ o 0 ~ 0 ~ td N ~ a' ~ = tL ~ i 0~0 Q f/1 ~ ~ ~ a w ^ ^ a CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY This page intentionally left blank PAGE 7-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY drinking water quality standards, some wells in the basin have experienced nitrate-nitrogen concentration in excess of the primary maximum contaminant levels.2 The preparation of the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Project included nine exploratory boreholes drilled on November 15, 16, and 17, 2004. Five of the boreholes were drilled around the perimeter of the existing building to depths of 21'/2 to 43'/2 feet below ground surface (bgs) and four borings were drilled in the parking lot to depths of approximately 10 feet bgs. Groundwater at the Project site was encountered at depths ranging between 8'/z and 11'/z feet bgs.3 FLOODING The Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone of Colma Creek as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Figure 7-2 shows the location of the 100-year flood hazard zone in relation to the Project site and the San Francisco Bay. 7.3 REGULATORY SETTING The proposed Project must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws, and regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are administered and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local regulations in California are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs, laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality and how they relate to the proposed Project. FEDERAT. LAWS AND REGULATIONS CLEAN WATER ACT The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the Federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the CWA. At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board z Department of Water Resources, 2004. s Twining Laboratories, Inc., 2005. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-5 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed them. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act established the responsibility of the RWQCB for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the water quality standards of the state (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The NPDES permits must be consistent with the Basin Plans. NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating non-point source (NPS) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates storm water discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb five or more acres of land. Under the program, the Project applicant will be required to comply with two NPDES permit requirements. The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation. The Project applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that will occur on the site. The applicant will also be required to submit asite-specific plan called the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP will include a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the pern~it prior to site construction. The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water associated with industrial sites. The permit requires the implementation of management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the PAGE 7-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY This page intentionally left blank PAGE 7-8 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY statute, operators of new facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Project SWPPP and perform monitoring of storm water discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the beginning of operations. LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS $AN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. $AN FRANCISCO BAY WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN BASIN PLAN The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies water quality objectives to maintain the continued beneficial uses of these waters. The proposed Project is required to adhere to all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan. Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of surface waters in the south San Francisco Bay include wildlife habitat, estuarine habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish migration, shellfish harvesting, commercial and sport fishing, water contact and non-contact recreation, navigation, and industrial service supply. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Westside Groundwater Basin (also referred to as the Merced Valley North Groundwater Basin) include municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial service supply, and agricultural supply.4 EAST OF 101 AxEA PLAN The East of 101 Area Plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of the adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the plan aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by a San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 1995. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-9 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and requiring that Projects comply with NPDES permit requirements.5 7.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 2) Would the Project 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 level (e.g., the 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)? 3) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 4) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 5) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ~ Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Would the Project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? s City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994. PAGE 7-10 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed Project involves the demolition of the existing on-site building and the complete removal of the existing parking lot in order to construct a new building and two-story parking lot structure. The site soils will be re-graded to accommodate the new structures, and a new subterranean storm drain system will be installed that will convey all storm water runoff from the site to the existing drop inlet located near the east entrance to the property from Dubuque Avenue. Potential hydrological and water quality impacts are primarily related to: (1) the exposure of soils during the construction period and (2) increased flows to the existing municipal storm drain sewer contributed by the proposed Project storm drain system. Pre- and post-development drainage conditions for the Project site axe shown in Figure 7-3. CHANGES IN PEAR RUNOFF Under current conditions, approximately 50 percent of the storm water runoff from the Project site is directed into the drop inlet at the east entrance to the property, while the remaining runoff drains off-site beside the railroad tracks. The proposed Project drainage plan would instead direct all storm water runoff to the existing on-site drop inlet. Using the Rational Method as presented in the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (1981), Questa Engineering performed preliminary calculations to analyze the impacts of the proposed Project on peak runoff. Peak flows for the 10-year design storm were calculated for the drop inlet on the Project site and the outlet at Oyster Cove. Results are presented in Table 7-1. PP 7. 0 M P Drainage area (acres) Peak flow (cfs) Drainage area (acres) Peak flow (cfs) Flow increase (cfs) Flow Increase 3.43 5.4 7.1 10.7 5.3 98% 7.98 18.7 11.65 26.7 8 43% * Assumes 3.67 acres drains to the railroad tracks and ponds/infiltrates; cfs- cubic feet per second HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-1 1 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY Impact 7-1 Increases in Peak Runoff. According to preliminary calculations by Questa Engineering, the proposed Project will approximately double the 10- year peak storm water flows to the on-site drop inlet along Dubuque Avenue and will increase 10-year peak discharge to the Bay by approximately 43%. No analysis of definitive information has been presented to verify that the existing storm drain system can carry the design flows under proposed Project conditions. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-1a Storm Drain Analysis. The applicant shall conduct a hydraulic analysis of the proposed storm drain system from the Project site to the Oyster Cove outlet to establish whether the existing storm drain pipe has capacity to accommodate the increased flows resulting from the proposed Project. The analysis shall include Rational Method calculations of pre- and post- development 10-year peak flows and shall take into account drainpipe slope and elevations, drainpipe size(s), and system head losses. The Storm Drain Analysis shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco City Engineer. If the analysis cannot determine that the existing storm drain can contain the additional flows from the proposed Project, Mitigation 7-1b shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure 7-1b Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the Storm Drain Analysis described in Mitigation Measure 7-1a cannot show that the existing storm drain has capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity. Methods such as on-site storm water detention, storm drain line upgrades, and an infiltration area shall be incorporated into the Project design. Mitigation Measure 7-2b requires incorporation of vegetated Swale and infiltration area fox treatment of storm water runoff from parking lot areas. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, changes to the Project Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of changes in peak runoff to a level of less than significant. PAGE 7-12 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR ~--',,~ W ~ ' L~ Q U ~' O O I" Z ~ 'v c W ~ a, ~ 0 = in Z O O O V ~ `W (~ .v vii / O! W ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ Z ~n ~ 6 3 ~•-~ ~ ~ ~ N o 0 0 rn `!w d v men °fi°m ~o~ ~ E c U t~ v~mo ~ ~ E W 3 ~ d a W 0 Qr 0 E U r ^ v l ~ w O N N ~: O r X C 9 a m 3 ri H O a w ~ w o ~ o ~ N = ~ ~ ~ w ~ Q ~ ~ O c v z O D Q CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY 'I'bis page intentionally left blank. PAGE 7-14 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY INCREASE IN NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NP$) IN RECEIVING WATERS Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various industrial activities are listed in Table 7-2. Development of the proposed Project would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering the San Francisco Bay by redirecting site runoff directly into the storm drain network. Under existing conditions, one half of the Project site runoff drains to grassy swales adjacent to the railroad tracks. This drain, though clogged, provides water quality benefits. The regarding and redirecting of storm water reduces these benefits. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources. Under the NPDES storm water permit, the proposed Project is required to provide permanent treatment for site runoff. To meet this requirement, the proposed Project includes a network of roof drains, parking lot trench drains, and curbside catch basins that are connected by subterranean pipes to the existing storm sewer located near the east entrance to the site on Dubuque Avenue. As a means of treatment, a vault based hydrodynamic storm water separator is proposed to be placed directly before the connection to the storm sewer. A hydrodynamic storm water separator is a cylindrical gravity separator into which a tangential flow stream is introduced in order to generate a swirling flow pattern. Settleable solids in the stream are removed by the centrifugal force of the water swirling through the system. Hydrodynamic storm water separators work well for removing heavy particulates and oils, but axe less effective at removing nutrients and other dissolved pollutants. Field monitoring results suggest that Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal rates fox various separator models range from 40 to 80 percent.'' Site constraints, including availability of soils of suitable depth, level surface, and stability, can restrict the effective performance of the separator unit. Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to impervious drainage area is also important.g It also should be noted that these types of structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) require periodic cleaning and maintenance. Vendors suggest different sizes for their separator models depending on treatment requirements and site specifics. The Project applicant has neither indicated a particular model to be used, nor provided site-specific hydraulic sizing calculations for the proposed hydrodynamic storm water separator. 6 University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003. ~ Rinker Materials Corporation, 2005. s EPA, 1999. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-15 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY Y i ~~ N ~ a ~ v N " r h~ v ~ U •~ rr-~~ ~ ~ L O Q Q Gs. C b~ 0 ~ Vehicle & Equipment Fueling Vehicle & Equipment Washing Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance & Repair Outdoor Loading & nloading of Materials Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids Outdoor Process Equipment Operations & Maintenance Outdoor Storage of Ray Materials, Products, & Biproducts Waste Handling & Disposal Contaminated or Erodible Surface Areas Building & Grounds Maintenance Building Repair, Remodeling, & Construction Parking/Storage Area Maintenance Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial. PAGE 7-16 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAfT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY Impact 7-2 Lack of Hydraulic Sizing Calculations for Hydrodynamic Storm Water Separator and Lack of Alternative Methods for Storm Water Treatment. Hydrodynamic storm water separator devices must be properly sized to maximize pollutant removal and meet water quality requirements. The Project applicant has not provided hydraulic sizing calculations or specifications for any of the storm drain treatment system. No other methods of storm water treatment such as vegetated swales have been identified. This presents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-2a Hydrodynamic Storm Water Separator Shall Be Designed in Accordance with CASQA Sizing Recommendations. The hydrodynamic storm water separator shall be designed in accordance with CASQA sizing recommendations for in-line Vortex Separator BMPs. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit, the applicant shall provide final calculations, sizing criteria, and maintenance responsibility provisions shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator. Mitigation Measure 7-2b Additional Storm Water Treatment Control Methods Shall be Incorporated into the Project. The Project shall incorporate the following design measures into the storm drain system: A vegetated/grass swale along the perimeter of the parking lot A notched curb along the parking lot perimeter to direct flow from the parking area into the swale A catch basin at the end of the Swale shall direct runoff into an infiltration area • All maintenance yard/service areas shall be covered The Drain Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of non-point source pollution to a level of less than significant. DECREASE IN GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Approximately 89 percent of the Project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. Redevelopment of the site would result in an approximate 4 percent increase in impervious surface areas. This slight increase in impervious area would not likely have a negative effect on groundwater recharge. Pre- and post-development impervious surfaces versus pervious surfaces are presented in Table 7-3. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-17 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS Construction of the proposed Project would involve the demolition of existing structures and pavement areas and grading activities. Existing structures and pavement that currently help to stabilize site soils would be removed during Project construction. Site grading is expected to involve a total export of 4,500 cubic yards and a total import of 11,400 cubic yards of material. Construction operations associated with the Project would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. 7 MP .P P P Impervious Surface Area 6.78 89% Pervious Area 0.84 11 P Impervious Surface Area 7.08 93% Pervious Area 0.53 7% Sources: (1) ALTA/AGSM Land Title Survey by Lars Andersen & Associates, 2005. (2) Conceptual Landscaping Plan by Greenberg Farrow, 2005. Impact 7-3 Soil Erosion. Project grading and other construction activities will disturb site soils, potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 7-3a Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the Project applicant shall develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during and after construction. The Project SWPPP shall ~ Shaw, 2005. PAGE 7-18 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction period: 1) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding shall be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls, shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. 2) "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other construction-related National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters. 3) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the Project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 4) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the Project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed Project site should be described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 5) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the Project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed. 6) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous, therefore, maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared of debris that may enter the storm drain system on a daily basis. ~ The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the Regional Water Quality Control Board HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 7-19 CHAPTER 7: HYDROLOGY (RWQCB) and City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. 8) The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the Project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b) proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall provide a SWPPP to the City Engineer and the Storm water Coordinator. The SWPP shall be subject tot the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator. Mitigation Measure 7-3b Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Grading activities are required to be inspected by the applicant's contractor to ensure compliance with the approved grading plans. The City of South San Francisco Public Works Construction Inspector will inspect the SWPPP measures to ensure on-going compliance with the approved SWPPP. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the construction and post-development impacts associated with erosion and siltation to a level of less than Significant PAGE 7-20 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR E:3 LAND USE 8.1 INTRODUCTION South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City (in the East of 101 Area), single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides.' While the City was an important center for the steel and shipbuilding industries through the 1920s and World War II, which in turn led to significant residential development and helped spur asix-fold increase in population between 1940 and 1959, South San Francisco has been making a slow industrial transformation over the past 35-40 years, with steel production and heavy industries largely replaced by warehousing, research, development, and biotechnology. Both South San Francisco's identity and land use designations and policies are now strongly tied to its unofficial title of "Biotechnology Capital of the World". Included within South San Francisco are 14 planning sub-areas. This project falls within the East of 101 Area, which is actually an aggregation of four sub-areas in the General Plan Land Use Element and encompasses all the land within City limits east of Highway 101. Adopted in 1994, the East of 101 Area Plan was prepared to maximize the potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City's traditional industrial east of U.S. 101 area. Consisting of approximately 1700 acres of land, the East of 101 Area is comprised of eight land use categories: Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, Gateway Specific Plan Area, Light Industrial, Coastal Commercial, Airport-Related, Open Space, and Transportation Corridors, with the largest portion of land zoned as Planned Industrial. This project is zoned Planned Commercial, and is consistent with the category's desire to "accommodate destination uses such as warehouse style retail specialty stores",Z as well as the Area Plan's desire for retail uses to be located along the perimeter of the East of 101 Area to serve visiting shoppers, business people, and recreational users, with the majority along the western portions of the area, so as to provide a transition between the industrial uses of the east and the remaining portions of the City west of Highway 101. 1 Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. z Brady and Associates, East of 101 Ana Plan, 1994 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-1 CHAPTER 8: LAND USE 8.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a project's environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project physically divide an established community? 2. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project? 3. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY The proposed Project would have n0 impact related to the division of an established community. The geography and surroundings of the project site foster a feeling of isolation from the surrounding community, as it is surrounded on the north and west by Dubuque Avenue and Highway 101, on the east by railroad rights-of--way, and on the south by office buildings. There are not any residential communities east of Highway 101 (as mandated by Policy LU-13 of the East of 101 Area Plan), and the highway serves as a buffer and shield in preventing the project site, and the access points along Dubuque Avenue, from dividing the established communities to the north and west. CONFLICT WITH PLANS AND POLICIES The Project site is currently zoned Planned Commercial (I'-C) and is part of the "East of 101" Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The site's General Plan designation is Business Commercial. This designation accommodates business and professional offices, visitor service establishments, and retail, and is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district that include and surround the project site along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards. The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses. Policy 3.5-I-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area. PAGE 8-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 8: LAND USE The proposed Project is consistent with the following East of 101 Area Plan policies: Policy LU-4a Uses allowed in the Planned Commercial category shall typically include hotels and motels, retail uses, office development, restaurants, administrative services, day care centers, business and professional services, convenience sales, financial services, personal and repair services, marinas, and shoreline-oriented recreation. Policy LU-13 No residential development shall occur in the East of 101 Area. Policy LU-24 Retail and personal services shall be encouraged throughout the area to serve the employees of the East of 101 Area. Policy PF-2 Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be installed as part of all new developments in the area. Policy DE-3 As an edge to the East of 101 Area, Dubuque Avenue should have streetscape improvements to emphasize its visual importance. Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping to meet the City's specifications for their frontages. streetscape planting, irrigation and hardscape should be designed for minimum maintenance by City staff. Selection and spacing of street trees shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low maintenance plants with automatic irrigation. Policy DE-17 In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks should and service areas should be located at the rear or side of the development, and should be separated from automobile parking areas. Policy DE-21 Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along property lines that is appropriate to the land use category, as shown in Figure A and specified in Section D of the Design Element. Policy DE-24 Perimeter landscaping should be provided in the landscaped buffers required in Policy DE-21, at a minimum rate of one tree for each 200 square feet of HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-3 CHAPTER 8: LAND USE buffer area. Buffer areas should be planted with low-growing flowering ground cover or shrubs. Policy DE-28 Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the development's design. Policy DE-29 Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with, be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements. Policy DE-34 All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails, adjacent properties, and overhead views from adjacent properties, by planting, berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment, including autos, trucks and trailers. Policy DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the Project and promote the development of a sense of identity for the East of 101 area. Policy DE-39 All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be detailed and treated with relief elements and changes in plane. Policy DE-52 Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or low towers. Policy DE-53 Mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the color of the roof where it is located. Policy DE-55 The following additional design policies apply in the 101 Frontage Area: Street Trees: Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each other. Dubuque Avenue should be specifically targeted for streetscape improvements due to its visual accessibility from Highway 101. PAGE 8-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 8: LAND USE Landscape Buffer: Landscape buffers along Dubuque Avenue should be at least 20 feet wide, and along other streets should be 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. Blank Walls: Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-38. Development along Dubuque Avenue should pay particular attention to visual integrity of their development as seen from Highway 101. Parking Lot Trees: Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a row without a planting island that contains at least one tree. Parking Lot Shrubs: Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a parking lot shall be planted. A minimum of five percent of the total parking lot area required to be landscaped shall be planted with shrubs. Policy NO-2 Office and retail developments in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so that the calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime does not exceed an L~ of 45 dBA, an instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA. The proposed Project would be consistent with and would not conflict with the above applicable City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies, thereby constituting no adverse impact. CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN Construction at the Project site would require removing fourteen (14) trees. Seven (7) of the trees on the site are considered "protected" trees under Section 13.30.020(f)(1) of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to tree preservation (Tree Ordinance). A "protected" tree is any tree with a circumference of 48" or more when measured 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees so designated based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance; or, a stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. "Protected" trees must be replaced with either three 24" box trees each or two 36" box trees each. The proposed Landscaping Plan would meet this criteria by providing 162 total trees, including replacing the 7 "protected" trees with two 36" box trees each. As such, the project will have a less than significant impact. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 8-5 CHAPTER 8: LAND USE This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 8-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 9 NoisE 9.1 INTRODUCTION Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents aten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 9-1. There axe several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- ~veighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 9-2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leg. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leg can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-1 CHAPTER 9: NOISE from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. 9.2 SETTING In South San Francisco, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise impacted areas. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses, in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These criteria indicate that noise levels of less than 70 dBA (CNEL)' are acceptable noise levels fox commercial land uses? The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.030) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned "P-C, Planned Commercial," and the noise level standard for this zone is 65 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Lso),s Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. - As the East of 101 Area is exposed to noise from a variety of sources, including aircraft, surface transportation, and various industrial uses, the East of 101 Area Plan calls fox office and retail ~ The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). z Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 280, Table 9.2-1. 3 The noise limit that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour). PAGE 9-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: NOISE developments to be designed so that calculated hourly average noise levels during daytime does not exceed an Leg of 45 dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA. In order to meet this, interior noise reduction for retail uses adjacent to Highway 101 between Coma Creek and Oyster Point Boulevard must meet or exceed 32 dBA.4 9.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: 1. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2. Would the Project expose persons to, or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3. Would the Project lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 4. Would the Project lead to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 5. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? 6. 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? IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES VIOLATION OF LOCAL NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS As noted in Section 9.2, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan (1999) contains land use criteria for noise impacted areas, which indicate that noise levels of less than 70 dBA (CNEL)5 are acceptable noise levels for commercial land uses. a Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, p. 157, Table 14 s The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-5 CHAPTER 9: NOISE The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations) specifies the maximum permissible sound levels for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The Project site is zoned "P-C, Planned Commercial," and the noise level standard for this zone is 65 dBA between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 60 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (LSO).' Shorter periods of noise levels higher than these limits are allowed, but only for specified periods of time. Specifically, the standard + 5 dB for more than 15 minutes, the standard + 10 dB for more than 5 minutes, and the standard + 15 dB for more than one minute in any hour are used. The standard + 20 dB cannot be exceeded for any period of time. However, where the existing ambient noise level already exceeds the above noise limits, the ambient noise level becomes the standard. The noise ordinance also restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES Traffic. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase traffic noise levels along local streets due to Project generated traffic. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3-dBA noise increase in a traffic dominated noise environment, and a 3-dBA noise increase is barely perceptible to most people. As shown in Tables 11-11A, 11-11B and 11-11C of the Transportation and Circulation chapter of this EIR, Project related daily traffic trips would increase to an estimated 4,690 daily trips under the proposed Project, which would lead to a noticeable increase in traffic noise levels at the Project site and its vicinity. However, due to the prevalence of commercial, office, and industrial land uses in the area, as well as the isolated geography of the site, noise thresholds vis-a-vis the Project and neighboring land uses are higher there than they would be if more sensitive land uses were present near the Project site. Due to these factors, the impact of traffic noise produced by the Project would be considered less than significant. Mechanical Equipment. Implementation of the proposed Project could increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity due to the operation of more powerful rooftop mechanical equipment process called "A-weighting" written as "dBA". CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). v Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francrrco General Plan, 1999, p. 280, Table 9.2-1. ~ The noise limit that cannot be exceeded fox more than 30 minutes in any hour (50 percent of any given hour). PAGE 9-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 9: NOISE than currently function at the Project site. However, the equipment would be screened by the raised building parapet walls. The impact of the HVAC system would be considered Zess than significant provided that the noise level produced by it conforms to the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. Vibration. It is not expected that future land uses at the Project site would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would have no impact related to excessive groundborne vibration or excessive groundborne noise. NOISE, GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION Temporary Noise Increase. During site preparation and construction at the Project site, operation of heavy equipment could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. Impact 9-1 Construction Related Noise. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact associated with Project development. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Mitigation Measure 9-1 Noise Abatement. While there are no existing noise-sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity that would be affected by Project-generated construction noise, neighboring businesses would be subjected to high noise levels during site preparation and construction. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. Assuming construction noise levels comply with the 90-dBA noise limit specified in the City Noise Ordinance, construction related noise impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant. AIRPORTS The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. These contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Projected contours for road, railroad, and other locally-generated noise are also included in the Noise Element. These contours indicate that the Project site is located in an area where noise levels generated by major road and railroad noise sources will continue to be between 70 and 75 dBA (CNEL). Based on the City's land use criteria, the proposed Project's commercial land use would be largely compatible with future noise level Projections in the Project vicinity of less than 65 to 70 dBA (CNEL), thereby representing a less than significant impact. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 9-7 CHAPTER 9: NOISE This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 9-8 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR ~o PUBLIC SERVICES 10.1 SETTING FIRE PROTECTION The South San Francisco Fire Department provides a full emergency medical services program, with certified paramedics on its fire engines and two full time Advanced Support ambulances. The 85-member department staffs three engine companies, two quints (combination fire engine and fire truck) and two ambulances. Minimum on duty staffing is 20 persons.' Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding areas.2 Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, two factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations: 1. Vegetation. Accumulations of vegetation serve as fuel for wildland fires; large concentrations of fuel, particularly where fires can spread from ground level to the tops of trees, can create conditions where wildland fires spread rapidly. Vegetation on both public and privately owned land in South San Francisco is generally poorly maintained and overgrown. 2. Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the City's ability to respond to fire. Poor access and inadequate local water supply can increase the loss of life and property in a fire. Eight fire hazard management units are identified in areas of the city that need vegetation management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for successful fire suppression.3 Each management unit is designated as high, medium or low priority in recognition of the relative need for risk management. The project site is not located in any of these fire hazard management units, and access to the site is adequate via Dubuque Avenue. 1 City of South San Francisco, Fire Department website. z Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, p. 264. 3 Ibic7 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 10-1 CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES POLICE PROTECTION The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The Department currently has a total of 80 sworn officers. The current ratio of officers is 1.2 per 1,000 residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the Department's response time goals. The Department typically works afour-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap. SCHOOLS The South San Francisco Unified School District operates all public schools serving South San Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly Ciry, and a small area of San Bruno, and is the largest school district in San Mateo County. The District operates ten elementary schools, three middle schools and two high schools. The District does not expect that school facility capacities will be met or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential development, and state directed class size reduction efforts have added new students, an aging population and a trend toward smaller families in the city will reduce the student population. Some schools have been closed, since they are no longer needed, and additional schools may need to be closed in coming years for the same reason. PARKS The City of South San Francisco operates 21 recreational facilities through its Recreation and Community Services Department.4 These include 9 parks (3 community parks and 6 neighborhood parks), a gymnasium, athletic field, and a variety of play lots and areas. 10.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental 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 following public services: a City of South San Francisco, Recreation and Community Services website PAGE 10-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAET FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES - Fire Protection - Police Protection - Schools - Parks - Other Public Facilities IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FIRE PROTECTION The Project site is not located in any of the city's fire hazard management unit areas, and access to the site via Dubuque Avenue is adequate. The Project's design would be required to comply with the city Fire Marshall's code requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the city's fire protection services. POLICE PROTECTION Though the Project would bring more people to the city, it is expected that the proposed commercial retail land use would lead to a Zess than significant increase in service calls to the Police Department. It is not expected that the Project would lead to an increase in Police Department service call response times. SCHOOLS The proposed Project would not involve the construction of residences which would increase student enrollments in the South San Francisco Unified School District. It is possible that the Project might lead some future employees of Home Depot to move their families to the city to live. However, such an influx of new residents would be so small that it would have a Zess than significant impact on the South San Francisco Unified School District. PARxs The proposed project would not place a significant demand on the City's public parks. Though some users of the project site might use the City's parks, this use would be considered Zess than significant. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 10-3 CHAPTER 10: PUBLIC SERVICES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 10-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 11 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 11.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents the analysis of traffic and circulation impacts from development of the Home Depot Project. It first describes the existing transportation network in the City of South San Francisco in the immediate area of the Project as well as year 2006 (Projected Home Depot opening) and year 2020 Base Case circulation conditions without Home Depot. Potential circulation impacts due to Home Depot on this network are then detailed in contrast to the current Levitz furniture store as well as in contrast to potential office/research & development activities that potentially would occur by 2020. Finally, the site measures are proposed to mitigate any Home Depot circulation and traffic 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 Draft EIR Circulation Analysis (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane Transportation Group, June 2005) and the 2005 Terrabay EIR traffic analyses by Crane Transportation Group. For the analysis of the currently proposed Home Depot Project, local transportation system conditions are described for the following scenarios: • Existing (spring 2005) • Year 2006 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions with the current Levitz operation on the Project site) • Year 2006 Base Case with the currently proposed Home Depot replacing Levitz operation • Year 2020 Base Case (anticipated future traffic conditions with office/research & development on the Project site) • Year 2020 Base Case with the currently proposed Home Depot replacing office/research & development For year 2006 and 2020 future year scenarios, this analysis assumes the following condition based on current development timing or specific Project development proposals for the Home Depot site: • Roadway and intersection geometrics are assumed to remain the same from 2005 to 2020 fox analysis purposes unless specifically stated otherwise in the text. All specific future roadway improvements needed as mitigation are presented after each impact. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 11-1 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 11.2 SETTING LOCAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM The network of freeways, arterial streets, and local streets serving the Project area is illustrated on Figure 11-1 and described below. U.S. Highway 101 (U.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 Home Depot 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 caxries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000 vehicles north of Oyster Point Boulevard. Sister Cities Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial roadway extending westerly 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. Bayshore Boulevard is primarily afoot-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 Home Depot 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 afoot-lane roadway adjacent to the Home Depot site. Airport Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard is a north-south arterial roadway located parallel to and west of U.S.101. The roadway is four lanes wide in the Project area. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-2 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR a ~- ~ ~g L ~ ~ ` °_' a a O z O H Q H O a z a w z ~ _ o s z Z ~I w ~a r~? 0 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-4 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Oyster Point Boulevard is a major arterial roadway extending east from the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection across the U.S.101 freeway and Caltrain railroad tracks into the East of 101 employment area. The freeway overpass has eight travel lanes and a narrow raised median. Dubuque 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 travel lanes along its entire length except adjacent to the majority of the Home Depot site frontage (where two northbound and one southbound travel lanes are provided) and 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. Adjacent to the Project site, a ±150-foot-long left turn is provided on the southbound approach to the site's northerly driveway. No turn lanes are provided on the approaches to the other three driveways now serving Levitz operations on the Project site. STUDY INTERSECTIONS In order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Home Depot Project, the AM and/or PM peak hour operations of nine existing or future intersections in South San Francisco have been studied-see Figure 11-2. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTERSECTIONS Signalized • Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound on-ramp • Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 northbound off-ramp/U.S.101 southbound on-ramp • Bayshore Boulevard/Southbound U.S.101 freeway on- and off-hook ramps/Proposed Terrabay North Access (to be signalized) • Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard • Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue Side Street Stop Sign Controlled • Dubuque Avenue/Project site north driveway • Dubuque Avenue/Project site central driveway • Dubuque Avenue/Project site south driveway HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-5 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TRAFFIC VOLUMES Both AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:15 PM) turn counts were conducted for this study at all existing analysis intersections north of the Project site within South San Francisco in February 2005. The recently completed southbound-to-eastbound flyover off-ramp from the U.S.101 freeway to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection was in full operation. In addition, AM and PM peak period counts were conducted at the two Grand Avenue intersections to be evaluated in June 2005. Existing AM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 11-3, while existing PM peak hour counts are presented in Figure 11-4. Figure 11-5 shows existing lane striping at each analyzed intersection. EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS Intersection Operation Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board [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 B Table 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 B Table 2 provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-6 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR ~_~ r ~ ~ O O y otL a H I t/1 O lT0 A ~2md' I I ~ C N ~ O T LL O Q ~, ~ N ~ C O c +~ ~ o ~ J N H d LL ~ Q L C ~y~~o Eon ~a ~ D o~~a°,o~ CQ d ~0 m tnOLL.. 0 7 d ~ y `c ~ ~ ~ ~E N 0~0 z0 a ~ sue` C ~ w o zc~ C.O y ~ ~ ~euu ° N O ~ J N N ~ ~N >' d ~ Pn/8 a~oys e8 Pn/8l~ !d L LL I d v .o Q ~ c a c _ m L E 7 N y d a ~ ~ i ao o °' ~ Q~ , o Rw fnm0 sr E 7 ~L v tea .. ~ p 3 c I . . fA G 0 fA m 0 iq I ~ E ° o a ~; =GdtA I Y ~, ~ ~ a. c a. aoa ~ ~rE ~ ~p gym > o~~ ~ ~ ~! > . h m" o omc `~ m o n aio s~(e at ~ ~ ~. N m C C ~ U O M Q a m a d o O N ` y a rN a- ~~ c 0 v N c ~~ • N C O C a:+ O ev d J L N ~ ~y C >' N C a ~_ W d 0 a ~ N ~ ~N d ~ d ~ L Q V. N ~ ~ 0 3 ~, ~ H LL ~ L ~ L1. ~ C C ~ O ~~ C O C !Q ~ V O J a O I~ V z ~_ H a 0 a z a W z ;~? CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-8 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 200 s 145 --- 70 ~, NOT TO SCALE N Sister 07Gl~ L 265 ~- 95 240 1 21015 645 '~ 0 ~ T ~' 10 45 0 Home Depot Project Site 120 4 i 2 ~! ~ ,` o ~~ 53 0 120 ° t 0 1 4 ro ~ Existing 53 ° Levitz Furniture .~ 1 ~° o t o Operation 4 53 0 Figure 11-3 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 95 370 395 •~ 1 ~• CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-10 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR I I I Sister I 1 1 745 l ,` 455 I 235 ~ 35 340 375 485 ~- t-- 730 's Blvd ,` 185 75 ~' ~t~ 335 ~ 50125 35 ~, m 6965 230 ~~ 6280 l 7990 1, '~ 175 165 425 145 ~- 265 460 ~- 675 190 ,' ran ve 75 -~ 75 4 ~ 11 5 145 ~, I 9060 1 7735 8280 ~ 1015 ~- 550 r Point Blvd '` 1100 245 2600 ~ g5 135 1655 40 5 '~ 0 .~ 1 4 ~ 5 ,` o 510 ~' ~ t 1 --- 50 90 0 34 ~, Home `~' Depot Project Site ~ 80 60 20 X1515 ~VI Grar 40 ~ 295 NOT TO SCALE N 68 6 i 14 d~ ro 41 0 67 1 L 2 1 4 ,` 3 ~ Existing 39 3 Levitz Furniture t 7i p o' ~ o Operation 2 ~ _~ I Figure 11-4 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-12 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 101 ~ , ~, ,. ,,~, N 'm o =Signal o k m ~ =Stop Sign ~ ~- \ =Free Right Turn 11 ~~~~y ~ ~ r P i t Blvd O t r~ 1 "r Sister Cities Blvd ys e o n ~~ ~~ ~ y ~~ a ~~ m ~, Home ~ Existing Depot Project Levitz ~ Furniture Site ¢ ~ Operation 101 Q o 0 `~ H E ~ Grand Ave ~I~ II ~1~Y ~ H -' ran ve ~,~ -~ --~ Home De of EIR Figure 11-5 ~~ C;~7 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Existing `~' Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionall~~ left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-14 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 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. 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. The two intersections along Grand Avenue have been evaluated as individual "stand alone" locations as the Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue intersection is traffic activated and not coordinated with operation at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all intersections analyzed for this study are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM commute peak traffic hours. All operations are either LOS A, B or C. 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 fox 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 HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-15 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR P'~ !'1 H W Vu I'~ O z V W z l ' V W O 11 ~I W A W x a 0 x w a. ~U W q c, c0 0 ~ ~ ~ .-. o0 O ~ o ~ ~ z d z o ~ c, ~ o r: ~a Q w Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ + N O N W ~ .-. ~-I Q ~ 00 ~-. c; ~ 0 0 w ~ Q w Q z z N v ~ Q ~ ~ f~ ~I W U Q N o N O ~ N e--I od N Q [~ .-. Q ~ N c~i ~ ~? ~ Gi M o ~ W a U U U z .-. W .Z z ~, U ~ ~ G ~ C CQ+ W ~ W N N ~ .. ~"' ~' ~' ~ a0 ~' W U U z r. z Z M U ~ ~ Z U' ~ ' , O r G\ Qli ~ i ~i ~ ~ v V' ~ ~ N N eM-~ z ~/ f-I ,7. N ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ V V f~ V ~ ~ W o ~ w w I ~ r'I ~ fA O O b O b , N v u N U ~ I ~ `~ W O 17 Q, ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ U ~ ~ `~ O ~ O O. ~ w ea Q Q U °~ O O ~ cn ~ ~ ai D Cn Q \ '~ v ~ N ~ s •--I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ , b ~ ~ ~xT-II ~ y,~ ~ a ~ ~ .., ~ o ~ ~ . ~ ~ fi !! ~ Ch6 ~ o '^I ~ ~ 1 U o ~ N "d \ "d ~ 'b ~c \ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~S~-I w ~ ~ ~ O ~ \ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~' I ~ v ~ ( n a~ ' a~ cis a~ ~ ( a~ Fq i a~ ~ a~ i a~ " W ~ ~ p o f~ ' o `~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~` ~ ~ iin o" in ~ Z QO +; OZ N ~ °O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~" o ~ a Q ~ Qv gv a r r a w w ~ ~ ro a~i .~ b b O C O qu- .~ o. 0 ~~ -o 0 0 U `n N w .~ .~ . ~ ca ca ~b~ b O q C C O O ~ ao ao ap y a'"i ski . I i" D U ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ h O O ~ w v O ~ ~ O ~ ,~ °~ Q O .~ A'' ~ o D '° ~ :~ u ~ ~ o '~ ~~ ~ a ~~~~ q ~ ~. s.l O b .~ a .~ w ~3~ rn O y a.+ ~'+ O ~' , S S CS y r`~ ~' 0 b~ ~o o~~~ S ~ v N ~ obi .0 ~~ ~ ~~~`~~ .1 ] U ~ H ~" n A. -e y i. LL•wO~V ~oo~~ z ~~~o z~~~v U w d H O d 2 w N U O LL H W N !'d H W V W O 1~ z 0 V W z l V ti W W a 1~1 a~ 0 W A W x O x a ~U ~' W ~? ~ oo r o .~ N o ~ O N N N ~' z ~' z ~ ~~. M ~ r r ~a Q ~, ~ w as U ~ U U N ~ + O N W N ~ W ~n N i i ~_ Vr ~_ O Vr ~t pp M ~ N i+'~ cWi~ (~ [~+ w z z c~ i ~ U ~ V U ~ L • ~ U W ~ M a0 O V', ,__, M N 0 W ~ 0~0 M ~' z .~-~ ~' z Q1' z M Vr (V (V a a ~, w ~ ~ Q ~ ~ + 0 N ~ W N M '~ M ~ et N M "' .-r ~ ~ ~ W '-" N z z Z "' ~' ~ ^ h~l ~ 00 M d' G1 ~ ~ z ~i z ~ z K? M M ~ N ~ : , C\ ,~ ~ V U FG V ~ ~ ~ W o ~ w = + ~J +++ ~--~ ~ ~ O O O U ~ rii ~n UU p c ~~ a ~ b ~ .b p cd "C~ C ~d U ~ ~ w O ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ''' ~ '' p '~~ 4W ~ O O ~ ~ H cn ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q U ~ ~ ~ 0 0 v 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ai ~ y ~ o x ° ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~° ti fA o r ~ v~ i vi a F" ' ~ 'b ~ ~ , G t', o C O ~ "~ .~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ o z ~ ~ °' o ~ ~ ~ ~~ .o ~~ b ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ W N °' ~ G4 b ~~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ O q , t'+ O ~ ,~ O (~ a~ O H ~ a~ O v, a~ O N ~ O '~ ~ j..i'' a~ O v p~ cn v p'~ ~ Z QO ~ OZ ~~ h ~ N ~ .y ~ ~ o ~ ~ q q r~a: r~ r~ aa ra"' Q Q"' Q~" a~i .~ b b O L'. ~O^ .N O b b -~ 0 0 U `n v'1 N .~~" .a .~ ~ ~ ebb -o o O q C C O O °~~ ~~ ~Ily I. N U ~~~ ~oo~ Jr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ y a a~~~Q o ~ ~-,d, o .~ ~ :~ ~~ ~:~~~o ~o~ C a ~~~~ q a~ O .~ a~ a .~ ~~ W ~+ C! ..may O 'yNQ m O C • `~ a~i~~ O ~ S, ~<j ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ . o ~~ ~~~~~ ~ V ~o H U ~ ~ °' ~ ~ a-e ti a •°o'~ V ~~ Q z°po~~ ii ~ ~ Z~~-,~V° Q d U O n. O W W O 2 w 0 U O CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 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 Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency 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 deficienry 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 11-2 shows the freeway mainline segments analyzed for this study. Tables 11-3 and 11-4 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 HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-18 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 11-3 FREEWAY OPERATION HOME DEPOT AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2006 EXISTING BASE CASE BASE CASE + HOME DEPOT VOL LOS VOL LOS PROJECT PERCENT TOTAL LOS INCREMENT INCREASE VOL SOUTHBOUND North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9040 F 19 +0.2% 9059 F Bayshore Blvd./Oyster (A) Point Blvd. San Mateo Ori ins Onl 181 181 A Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8400 D 20 +0.2% 8420 D On-Ramp and Grand/Miller SB Off-Ramp San Mateo Ori ins On 168 A 168 A NORTHBOUND Between Grand Ave. On- 8195 D 8840 D 19 +0.2% 8859 D Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp San Mateo Ori ins On 6276 C 6290 C North of Oyster Point On- 8065 D 8320 D 25 +0.3% 8345 D Ramp San Mateo Ori ins On 590 C 5925 C Year 2000 Highavay Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Grnup HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-19 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 11-4 FREEWAY OPERATION HOME DEPOT PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2006 EXISTING BASE CASE BASE CASE + HOME DEPOT PROJECT PERCENT TOTAL VOL LOS VOL LOS INCREMENT INCREASE VOL LOS SOUTHBOUND North of SB Off-Ramp to 6965 D 7210 D 28 +0.4% 7238 D Bayshore Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. San Mateo Ori ins Onl 288 A 290 A Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 8505 D 39 +0.5% 8544 D On-Ramp and Grand/Miller SB Off-Ramp (San Mateo Origins Only) 340 A 342 A NORTHBOUND Between Grand Ave. On- 8280 D 8710 D 34 +0.4% 8744 D Ramp and Oyster Point Off-Ramp San Mateo Ori ins On 7491 7520 North of Oyster Point On- 9060 E 9720 E 48 +0.5% 9768 F Ramp San Mateo Ori ins On 8359 8400 Year 2000 Highway Capacity ManualAnalysis Methodology Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-20 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 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 Beport (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). These capacities reflect LOS E operation, the same service level which is acceptable for freeway operation. Existing Freeway Ramp Operation Figure 11-2 shows the various freeway ramps analyzed for this study. Tables 11-5 and 11-6 shows that the 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 50~' and 95r'' percentile queues. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-21 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR F V ti V 0 O N A V 0 O N z can W z~ O ~+ O W~ ~I w oa ~~ ;. A ~~ W w W p 0 "" U W d ~ a'"i bb ~ a a'"i a"i b-~ a a a'"i a"i -o-o ~ a N a"i bb ~ a a"i ai''i vv ~ a a ~ z + w ~ w ~ o M ~ ~ c, O M ~ M ~ O O .~-i V' r ~ ~ G ~ N ~ a ~V ~ bb ~ vv q -d-d q -d -d ~ -d-d ~ W W ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z w ~ G~1 W a M O M O O ~ r N .M-~ O O O .~-~ O ~~ ~U W~ bb ~ ~ z bb c bb c bb ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a z z ~ ~ W ~ a O~ ~ Z u~ ~°N'' OOrON o O~ 0 y~ "' ° ° o ° ° 0 ° ~ o c, .--i o c~ ~ o ,-, o N N o ,~ N o r. o N N ~ ~ ~ a a a w" w" a ~ 4" ~.~ ~ x ' w ~ is P~ ' " ~ ~ ~ 0 O 0 y g O p N G s.i p~ O ~ ~ t+' p~ ~ ~; ~ ~r~ ~a, ~ zo . zQ ~Q ~' ro v U N to O a N 0 0 .~ y .o a V ~~ ~v U ~ N '~ ~ ~' on ~ W ~ ~qja O +~-' cd ii '~ y Q. p ~~ a.~ ~ a•. o ~ ~~ ~ ~ o °',~a a-~ ~~~ .~~~~•~ °" a, `° o. a~ .~ o ~ V ~ ~ II o ~ +~ ~' N *kU~Z~ V `-' a .o H U U w O H O W 0 2 o' w 0 U O Q 0 N N w U Q W W V h+N O N 0 N A V 0 N O N V z H W z~ O~ O ~x !~1 O a ~' ;~ ~A W~ w ~ ~ `~ W ~+ ~i sr t~ ~f.' ~L7 s~ sr ~i'. C w y~ C~ ~ sr sa C Q tr tai q~ ~ a W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + z w ~ c~ w W 3 ~ ] C'T ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O M ~ .--~ ~ ~ .~-~ Q i ~ ti N N~ ~ N N N 0 ~ ~ x o ~ ~~ N N C~ ~ N ~~ ~~ C~ ~"~ N 0 q -- N ~"~ Q U W ] ~ ~ ~ O ~ O N N O N ~ N a ~~ ~ U w~ ^o -d ~c ~ z -o -o ~ -o v°' ~ -d -d c ~ ~ ~ ~ z z H ~ W W ~, 0 °o o °o O O °o °o O O ,~j V G\ ~--~ CT .-+ ~.. N N ,-. N ,-. N N o C. a w" w" a `" ~ a o ~,~/~ ~ C~/~ ~( y W N ~ N nn w r1 w '~ W 1 ^~' p Vi O N ~ ~ O~ n ~~, ~a, zo zQ . ~Q ~' U N G"i s~ O ~'. q a~ a 0 b N U .~ ,r y U a~ .o U P~ ~~ ~~ '~ U ~ y ~ '~ as ~ on ~ U y ~ W a saC~,, O ~ ~ ~, ~ y R~ C ~~ o ~ .~ c ~ ~..~ ~ °' o a~; ~ _ U ~ ~ ~ ~a'n~3 .a~~o"'~ ,~ ap.,~w ~.~~o~ ~~~~zo ~ ~ ~ o ~~~,z~ ~~ ~~~ a ,O Q H s U M N Q d w 0 0 w 0 W U O Q 0 CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Queuing Standards The City of South San Francisco standard is that the 50``' percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage, while the Caltrans standard is that the 95`'' percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within the available storage. 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 11-7 and 11-8 show that during the AM and PM peak hours, the 50th percentile queues within the Oyster Point interchange are not exceeding available storage. However, Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that 95th percentile queues are exceeding available storage on several approaches to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection during both the AM and PM peak hours and on one approach to the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Field observations confirm that the theoretically predicted queuing intermittently exceeds available storage on certain approaches for certain movements. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Local Bus Routes The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. There is currently no SamTrans service running adjacent to the Project site on Dubuque Avenue nor east of the U.S.101 freeway. Local area bus service west of the freeway 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. 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. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-24 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR /~ U W WW za H~ ox W //W~~ ~ ~ V ~~~ ~o~ Hz~ H ~ C7 W z~ ~~ W~ ~x a~ ~° V " x ~U cn ~' W W W O N ~ N ~ V, N 00 ~--~ V 00 r+ N M V, ~ $ ~ N N O ~ N O ~ N N M .--i ~ ~ ~ ~ .--~ V• .--~ O O ~--~ .-. M N ~ V M r ~ G1 .--~ ~ ~--~ N G~ e--~ V 00 ~ M 00 ~ M O M Vr .-i ~' a aW ~+ Nw Nz w ~~ ~ N ~' O M --~ G~ --~ f b 00 N --~ 00 00 00 W 00 --~ N -+ Vl .--~ V -~ ~ N O ~ . N N M N O~0 M i j . N --~ 0 ~ i O ~ ~ ~t .--~ V .--~ . fib ~ to M if') M O ~ .-~ ~ . . ~ W~ ~, ~ w W W O ~ [~ O M M ~ M ~ r~~i /~ r~~i L-i r~~i ~ r~~i ~ O 'V O CT O 00 O G1 .--i V• N ~i Z O d ~ i--i [~ ~-+ .-• 00 V 00 G~ N Vl ~--~ Vl i--~ O M 'V w x `~ a aw ~+ ow Nz w ',r W ~t [~ c~ N o ~ o d' ~r~ F-~ ~ '~. ~r~ F-~ ~r~ ,c-i oo ~ o 00 N 00 ~ ~ N ~ l~ ~ 'z ~ N `~' N ~ G~ Vl M ~ r N r G~ ~ G~ ~ ~ M 7 F a C ~ z w W o W w 7 F-~ r~ F-1 r~ F-~ 7 F-~ r~ H r~ F-~ 7 ,4 7 H !p ~~y ~ M ~ N ~ ~ ~ z l~ O ~ ~ ~ O M M ~ eM-i z w o ~ v ~ a,, W W w O ~ ~ [~ 0 O 0 O ',+ ~ O O N ~ O O ~ w H N N ~ N 0 ~ 0 .-+ 0 A ~ u'~ ~ u~ N ~ N ~n ~ ~n N M ~ ~+'~ O .--~ 0 O 0 O ~ ~ ~+"~ ~ O z M d' V V' M G1 M N CA M Vr M N N N N ~ N N [~ [~ N N ~, ~ ~ o N F ~ a , d ~ ~ U ~ N a ~ ~ H w q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ; ~ [ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a ,~ ~ o ~ w '~ '~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ x ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ o o o o ' ' ~"' '7 w w d PQ f~ ~ Z ~ ~ Q' Pg FA Z P~ Z W W ~ PA ~ W W Fp p~ ~ ~ ~ O P~ W al W al W W Z W Z W Z . A O O Fn f~ cn cn cn ~ ~ ~ cn v~ a 0 x a N U Q o.. M a~ ~~ H ~ ~ w C 'd o O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: .~ ~ D ~~ W .av ~ ~. ~ W U ~ < x0 O ;; ~- C.~ = L x '~ VN W 11 LW w 1 za z~ ~ ~ ox WW ~ ~ ~~~ ~o~ z~ H ~H ~w z~ ~~ Ww ~~ ax O ~n V " x W ~ W W O M V' M ~i' v M G1 ~ d' V ~ ~ O N ~ M 0 ~,,,., 0 ~t O et [~ ~ N M ~ M d' V V O V .--~ [~ ~ V N ~--~ -. O t~ M O .-~ ~--~ .--~ v ~--~ V oo N ~ N V' M ~ N v N N v N Vr .-. .--~ rV N .--~ ~~ . a d O,W O a+ Nw Nz w x ~' W V' M ~ M M ~ ~ l~ ~--i M d' O ~ a0 G~ M M N M M ~ V' ~ .--~ N V O V M ~ DD ~ CT 7 to 00 tf') M ~ ~ --~ ~ --~ ~ M Vr . • GQ W~+ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ W W a N G~ N ~ V l~ ~ l~ i ~ ~i ~ i ~ 7i 7 H M ~ M ~ d' ~--~ r ~--~ ~ ~ 0 0 M r~r~~' F-i O •--~ O r"' O •--~ T C N r M °-+ M [~ ~l'1 [~ ~ .-• N N tf') w a Q, W ca + ow N z 6 w ~r~ ! M G'1 e-+ ~ i--i l~ ~-+ t~ ~i '~-~ ~ 'Z ~i 'J-~ ~ '~-~ N ~ V' ~ '~'+ ~~. ~ 00 M M N N ~i z ~ G1 ~ d' .--~ l~ 0 ~ ~ ~ N N N tP> N iP) V• ~-. [~ N ~ H z wW o -~ W w ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N .--~ ~ .-~ O e~ M M ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N .-. ~ .-. ~ ~--i •--~ M [~ M oo M G~ .-. M ~--i ~ ' Z --~ -i . -i . i y -i W ~ ~ H z w p ~ U ~ p„ W W w O ~ 0 0 '~ ~ O N O O w ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 A N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N O O O N N O z M ~ V' 'V M G\ M ~ fn M V' M N N N N ~ N N [~ l~ N N ~, ~ ~ o ~ w H a d v ~ a z oa ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ H z ~ ° ~ WW a ~ ~ W a ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ,~ , ~ ,~ ,~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ aa aa ~ ra ~ ~ w aa w ~ ~ ~ ~" aa aa w aa aa aa O w ~ ~ ~, aa ~ z oa z z ~ ~ oa w ~ ~ ~ O w w w z z z A 0 0 ~ ~ x ^~^. 1~ a b b .~ .~ c~ U i(- U 0 o< 0 o_ W 0 w U O H 0 N U Q rl f~ H V w w ~ ~ LW w H za z~ H ~ Ox WW O z~ H~ C7 W z~ ~~ W~ ~x a~ ~~ V " x ~U ~ W W A ( WO N ~ M Vr c~ r M oo N C\ oo N M ~ 00 ,~ N ~-. M ~n N G1 M ~ .-+ ~n O ao --~ v ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ o 00 ao N .-. ~ G\ ,~ ~--~ .~ O oo ~ ~ ~ ' ~ f `~ ,r, ~ ~ ~ M . .--~ .--i V ~-+ M M [~ V V M aw ~+ Nw Nz w ~~ ~ w ~y W r. M 00 .--~ V N l~ N ~ M .-. N N W M u'1 M N .--~ ~ ~ M .--~ O V ~--~ W ~ .-. r C\ N ~-+ M M V ~ v ~ V ~ W M W ~ ~ W ~ j W `~ ~ ~ G1 .--~ M V' N 00 N 00 ~ r~ Z ~i r~ /~ ~i r-~ / ~i Z •--~ .--~ •--~ ~--~ M a--i O N a--~ r, N ~ M N G~ ~i 'z G1 G~ ~ N M ~ M ~-. l~ r M 00 --i N t!1 ~ [~ .--~ ~ f~ .--~ ~ u') ~ tf') --~ W N a --~ i . aW ~+ ow Nz ~ w r =, rl O DO ~ N V~ t~ l~ l~ [~ ~i 7 ~i ~ ~i ~ ~i Z ~ ~' O N ~--~ ~ N •-+ V N M ~ ~ .--~ --~ ~i ~ N ~ 'V N M M N O V' -. C1 V• -r G1 M ~ to G~ M tf') G~ ~ V O ~ r -i -i -i i • -i . . M ~-- Qa H z wW o w ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~ o0 N G\ N N d~ ~ N N ~ ~ O ~ ~ M ~+'> ~ z F-i F-~ i.y F-i M . . -~ . W a F N z W o ~ U ~ p„ W (~ O ~+'~ ~.t1 t~ O O O ~+ O u~ ` t O O a w E" ~ M v~ 0 f 0 0 ' qty N ~ uy v1 vy O O O ~ N O w M ~ V' O V I O M ~ G1 O M ~ ~+'~ V) N N M V V .--~ M ~ ~r ~ N v~ N ~ ~ N u~ N M .--~ ~n N ~--~ N O [~ O l~ N N uy N Hz ~ o ~ ~ H a U A ~ ~' ~" ~ ~ z a H a `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U \ Z ~ ~ ,~ O \ / ~ ~ ~ w w N w ~ ,~ 0 ~ ,~ ~ O C ~ Q '~ W ~ ,~ w w '~ ] ~ ~ ,~ 0 c a P~ FG cn Z ~? 3 F~ ~ irl Z Z W cn a1 cn ~ 04 ~ W FA cn f~ cn fA cn ~3 ~3 P3 ~" 0 ~A W W W P~ W (~ Z L~ 7 FG z ~ A w 0 w 0 fA cn FA cn x 0 x a ca b b .~ .~ u N w Q d U O d F- O W w O u C u C C u F u 0 C Q H V NU W LW W 1 za z~ ~ ~ Ox WW ~~ o~ z~ H ~ ~H C7 W z~ ~~ WW ~x a~ ~~ V " x ~U ~ W W Q ~--~ V' t [) ~ G1 ~ O l~ V .--~ ~ V 'V G1 .-. O M O ,~ ~ M I~ ~ ~ N M Vr tf'1 ~ ~ V' I~ M to -r ~--~ l~ ~fy M O --~ N a0 ~t N --~ V ~ -~ 00 O 00 G1 ~ 00 if't O N M N M ' N G~ Vr N ~ ~ Qti . e . M . . .~r ~ ~ M .-• aw ~+ Nw Nz w ~~ .--~ M N O N O V ~ ~ N ' ' W ~ fib ~+') [~ G~ ~ N O ~ S V M S M V' ct ~ M N V [~ N O ~ ~-+ 00 V N O V O N M N M ~ [~ M M GQ w~ ~ ~ W W O ~--~ N ~ ~ •M• ~ •M• z z ~ ~ N ~ N .~. [~ .~+ N ~ ~ .--~ M ~ O ~. O ~r O N V' ~ ~--~ ~ ~ 00 M. 00 M-+ ~ O r ~' a -i i -~ . . . . w aW ~+ `O w 0 z ~ ~! ( O ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ W N M ~ --~ --~ ~i Z ~i ~ ~i z ~ z V' ~ W ~ -• ~ --~ G\ ~ ~" ~i ~ M --i M ~ N [ to M ~ CT f1i N O M N ~ • • i i . ~ M -~ . .-. M M i--i i + H z wW o w ~ W w di z ~i z ~i~i z 7~i z ~i z r~i z ~i z 7~i z ~ M ~' O N ~ ~• d ~-~ N M u') N Q' ~ N fir [~ ~ ity N .-. N N ~ O N if1 G~ ~ G1 G1 V r. ~ Z i-y . • i . W a F z W o ~ U p„ W w w O ~ in l~ 0 O 0 O ~I 0 O u'~ ~ O O O of W H ~ N ~ N 0 Vr 0 .~ 0 ~ ~ u'~ ~ ~ N ~r~ M ~+'~ u'~ E M N ~ O .-+ 0 O 0 O ~ ~+'~ ~ ire O z M ~ V" V `~ M G~ M tf~ fA M V M N N N N N ~--~ N N [~ l~ N N ~, ~ ~ o ~ a W ~ E ., a ~ ~ U ~ N a ~ ~ z F A ~ W ~' H r, o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ s ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ' aa qa w Q, aa ~ ~ CQ z ~ ~ ~ oa ~ z ~ z ~A ~ FG ~ d r~ ~ w P~ ~ W ~ W ~ ~~ ~3 ~~ 3 ~ ~+ O Fq w pa W p~ W p~ Z ~q Z Gq Z 7 A 0 w 0 W v~ FA v~ F~+ O x w ^~^. 1~1 a c~ c~ a~i a~ .~ .~ c~ P~.~ U iF U O O W W 0 w 0 U O LL 0 N w Q CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue, Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays. Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 397 (297): San Francisco-Palo Alto (Stanford Shopping Center) operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. Buses operate on one-hour headways each direction between about 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM, seven days per week. Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. This station is within walking distance of the Project site. Caltrain/BART Shuttles Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART station. The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are six trips in the morning and six trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with seven morning and seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle. Shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board QPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). There are no shuttle stops along Dubuque Avenue other than at the Caltrain station. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-29 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE A sidewalk is in place along the east side of Dubuque Avenue in the Project vicinity. However, there are no bicycle lanes striped or posted along Dubuque Avenue in the Project area. PLANNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The City of South San Francisco is currently completing construction on the final ramp improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is replacing 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 will significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue within the Oyster Point interchange. 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 aright 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). Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, only Bayshore Hook Ramps intersection improvements and signalization were assumed in place at study intersections by 2006. Figure 11-6 presents year 2006 Base Case intersection geometrics and control, while Figure 11-7 presents year 2020 Base Case intersection geometrics and control. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-30 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR N.,~ ~ z ,~~ ~~~ U1 '~ N m o =Signal m ~ =Stop Sign ~ ~ \ =Free Right Turn ~~ ~ ~~ _ Sister Cities Blvd ~ Oyster Point Blvd ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ y a ~~ m a Existing Q Home ,~ Use Depot Project Site Q °r 1 01 ~' ~ Home Depot Q Q1 ~ Q H ~- ~ ~ ~ Grand Ave ~yI ~! ~ --~ ~ H -' -~ rand Ave ~,~ -- Home De of EIR Figure 11-6 \~ C, CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 __~ Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionall}' ]eft blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-32 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR Terrabay Ph 3 Access Terrabay ~ ~ ~~~ a > in Ph 3 Access ~~ t Terrabay Ph 3 Access .-- ~~~~~ Sister Cities Blvd ~ ttr ~ a m Ovster Point --~~ .~~1~ Ni,l Ici St nLE N <-- ~~ ~~ Home Depot Project Site t~ ~- ® =Signal ^ =Stop Sign ~ =Free Right Turn 1 Existing Use or > Home Depot J t- ~ Grand Ave ~1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H -' ran ve _~ `~ 11~r' Home Depot EIR ~ _ Figure 11-7 ,;; _.. ~~, CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2020 ~_~~ Lane Geometrics and Intersection Control CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-34 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The following discussion presents anticipated impacts on the local transportation system due to non-Project Base Case growth in traffic expected in the site vicinity by the years 2006 and 2020. Year 2006 Base Case Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes Approved Development Trip Generation South San Francisco Trip generation was estimated for approved industrial/office/R&D developments in the Project area (see Table 11-11). Information on approved developments was obtained from City of South San Francisco staff. In addition, traffic from Lowe's home improvement store 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 Table 11-12). It should be noted that 2006 Base Case development did not include construction of the approved 665,000-square- foot office/10,000-square-foot retail development on the Terrabay Phase 3 site. However, trip generation Projections were developed for remaining Terrabay Phase 2 residential development at that time of the new traffic counts: 12 townhouse units and 61 high-rise condo units (see Table 11-13). Traffic generation rates for approved office/R&D/hotel development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Keport for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Apri12001). 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 2006 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard, as provided by the City of Brisbane. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-35 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 11-11 TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2006 (See References for the list of studies providing traffic Projections for each Project) RESULTANT PEAK HOUR TRIPS PRO ECT SIZE 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 ~), Net 399 374 2. 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.FI), - 170 - 191 Net 1,037 1,010 3. Genentech Building 5 33 R&D and 37 ra e 125,000 S .FT. 61 131 4. Genentech Building 31 Office/R&D 150,972 S .FT. 234 225 5. 180 Oystet Point Office 105,000 S .FT. 100 90 6. 200 Oyster Point Office 155,000 S .FT. 147 133 7.345 East Grand R&D 210,560 SQ.FT. 124 115 (replacing warehouse uses) (- 31). ~_ 45). Net 93 Net 70 8. 285 East Grand Ave./ 349 Allerton Ave. 122 111 Office/R&D (replacing existing site uses) - 38 - 28 Net 84 Net 83 Source: Crane Transportation Group HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-36 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 11-12A LOWE'S SITE TRIP GENERATION DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-WAY TRIPS INBO UND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL Lowe's 148,749 S .FT. 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193 West Marine Bldg.-North Area 6,590 SQ.FT. 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 o Chan e - NA* 2 0 14 12 GRAND TOTAL 5908** 130 106 243 268 * NA =Not surveyed fox daily trip generation. ** 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.• Tra~c Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002; Existing West Marine Store, Crane Transportation Group, June 2005. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Table 11-12B 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 Bld . 130 106 243 268 Existin Site Uses includin West Marine Bld . - 42 - 37 - 108 - 86 Net Chan e in Site Tri Generation +88 +69 +135 +182 Source: Crane Transportation Group HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-37 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR F z H W z 1~1 H z w a. O a w a F z w a c~ z z I N W ~i GQ W H ~\ O 0 N M~ 11 w O z o N o ~, N ~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ W ~ p ~ O x a q ~ 0 ~* N N ~ a p z ~ M M A ~ ~ N N ~„ O a ~ ~i p W ~ M M O x a ~ q o ~. ~ ~ O z ~ o s ~ ~ ~ ~~ o -d ~ q F V 0 N .~ w .o H `~ .~ 5 .o W ~' ~~ ~ ~ .o ~° ~, C~ .;y H ~ ~U °,.t '~ q H U O a. O CW 0 w 0 U O LL H Q M r= w Q d CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Regional Traffic Growth on U.S.101 Freeway North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not associated with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was Projected to grow at a straight line rate of one percent per year from 2005 to 2006. Approved/Proposed Development Trip Distribution The estimated distribution of approved office/R&D/hotel development traffic was based upon employee surveys conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates and Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994). The inbound and outbound traffic generation from each development was distributed according to the percentages shown in Table 11-14. New Terrabay Phase 2 residential trip distribution was based upon surveyed AM and PM peak hour trip distribution patterns at both entrances to the existing Terrabay Phase 1 + 2 development. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2006 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 11-8 and 11-9. Year 2006 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that by 2006 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 E conditions during the PM peak traffic hour. Year 2006 Base Case Freeway Operation Table 11-3 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 11-4 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). Year 2006 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation Table 11-5 shows that AM and PM peak hour volumes on all five analyzed freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange would be under capacity in the year 2006. Year 2006 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 50~' Percentile Queue Table 11-6 shows that year 2006 Base Case volumes would be producing 50th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and/or 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. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-39 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 11-14 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 7 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 7 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, Apri12001. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-40 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR I I Sister I I 'L 20 9040 500 330 ~, 4 ,` 320 1 225 45 1335 ~ 20 155 340 325 ~ 230 ~ l ~- ,` 90 's Blvd 120 ~ ~ t (~ 1100 ~ 45130 3 135 7740 l -~ m 8400 1 i 122 105 3715 746 ~- 122 ~ 142 1 ~- 213 220 ~, ran ve 206 --- ~ 295 224 70 ~, I 8320 I 7515 1 8840 ~ 305 ~--- 110 ~r Point Blvd ~ '` 285 470 ~' 0 ~ 770 --- 485 32 1075 30 .- 1 ~ 't_ 0 625 1 .~j~. ~ r 5 o 1250' ~ 1 0 -- 30 85 0 75 ~, Home Depot Project Site NOT TO SCALE N 215 4 i 2 d~ to 113 0 215 0 '~ 0 l ~, r ~ Existing 113 0 Levitz Furniture 215 0 o L o Operation r l~ t ~' 113 0 -L 50 29 50 r 570 \ ~ Gra it 66 ~ 1110 I Figure 11-8 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 Base Case AM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-42 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 440 350 t- 30 l 4 ~ 480 280 I Sister I I i 1 L 185 350 395 175 ~-- 860 ~- ,` 210 's Blvd 85 ~ ~1 t (~ 365 -- 130180 2 60 -i m 7210 l 275 ~~ 6945 1 8505 1, 294 187 430 235 ~ 333 688 •~ 1 ~- 680 198 ,, ran ve 90 --- 75 4 ~ 118 145 ~, 1 9720 1 8060 T 8710 '~ 1305 •- 780 r Point Blvd ~ '~ 1260 255 1' 2300 510 5 Q~~ 1450 115 5 '~ 0 .~ j ~- ~ 5 ,` o 555 ,' ~ 1 0 --- 105 200 0 95 ~, Home Depot Project Site NOT TO SC ALE N 204 6 ~ 14 .! ~ r o 291 203 1 '~ 2 1 ~- ,i- 3 T ~ Existing 28s 3 Levitz Furniture 2 ~ 0 0~ o Operation 1 292 0 1l., 85 95 23 ~ 1900 ~ Gran 57 ~ 386 Figure 11-9 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 Base Case PM Peak Hour Volumes ~_ CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-44 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION AM PEAK HOUR • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The northbound right turn approach lanes would have storage demands (per lane) about 3 car lengths greater than available storage. PM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Airport Boulevard Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) about 1 car length longer than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The northbound turn lane would have a storage demand about 2 car lengths greater than available storage. Year 2006 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that year 2006 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and/or 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/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound approach left turn would have a demand 2 car lengths longer than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach right turn lanes would have storage demands (per lane) 9 car lengths greater than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 1 car length greater than available storage. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 3 car lengths greater than available storage. PM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-45 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 3 car lengths greater than available storage. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound approach left turn lane would have a demand 2 car lengths greater than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 8 car lengths greater than available storage, while the northbound through/left turn lane would have a storage demand 4 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 B Tables 3 and 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 Keport (DSEIK) 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 References). 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) • 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 HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-46 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 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. Year 2020 Base Case traffic Projections also include development of the proposed retail/movie theater, office and residential development on the Terrabay Phase III site. Resultant AM and PM peak hour year 2020 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 11-10 and 11-11. Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that by 2020 all analyzed intersections would be expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with four exceptions. 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 Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard: LOS F operation • Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Mandalay Terrace: LOS F operation Year 2020 Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation Table 11-6 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 on the southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue would also be above theoretical capacity limits. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-47 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 50`x' Percentile Queue Table 11-7 and 11-8 show 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/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities eastbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 7 car lengths greater than the available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The northbound left and right turn approach lanes would both have storage demands greater than available storage distance (1 car length longer for the left turn lane; 12 car lengths longer than available storage (per lane) for the right turn lanes). The eastbound through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 6 car lengths greater than the available storage. 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 14 car lengths greater than the available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would have a storage demand (per lane) 15 car lengths greater than the available storage. The westbound approach left turn lane would also have a storage demand 3 car lengths greater than the available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach right turn lane would have a demand 14 car lengths greater than the available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left and combined through/left turn lanes would have storage demands about 17 and 14 car lengths greater than the available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach left turn lanes would have a storage demands (per lane) 16 car lengths greater than the available storage. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-48 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Entrance The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would have a storage demand 1 car length greater than the available storage. Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing: 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that year 2020 Base Case volumes would be producing 95th percentile vehicle queues longer than available storage during the AM and PM peak hours on the intersection approaches presented below. AM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 14 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) one car length longer than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane) 10 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 7 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound through/left turn lane would have a demand 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn lanes would have a demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage. • Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp Intersection The Dubuque Avenue southbound through lane would have a demand 5 car lengths longer than available storage. PM PEAK HOUR • Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay North Access Intersection The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane would have a demand 9 car lengths longer than available storage. The off-ramp left turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard northbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane) one car length longer than available storage. • Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-49 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 16 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound left turn lane would have a demand 3 car lengths longer than available storage. The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes would have a demand (per lane) 12 car lengths longer than available storage. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane would have a demand 18 car lengths longer than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would have a demand 17 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn lane would have a demand 26 car lengths longer than available storage. The Dubuque Avenue northbound through/left turn lane would have a demand of 22 car lengths longer than available storage. • Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp/Southbound On-Ramp Intersection The Dubuque Avenue southbound right turn lanes would have a demand (per lane) one car length longer than available storage. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-50 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR '!- 20 I 36 791 398 ~- 98 ~ 4 526 Ten'abay Ph 3 Access 17 ~ ~- 51 --- I 14 ~, 341 218 39 1292 1710 Ten'abay Ph 3 Access 22 ~' 61 ~, 119 537 ro` o 10 1343 'm Ten'abay ~ + ~°e Ph 3 Access 77 m 229 446 745 'L 154 I ~ ~- 429 Sister Cities Blvd ~ 107 I 60 ~ ~ t t~ 322 64180 372 1457 -- I 100 ~, 160 4151621 ~l~ 530 ~' 408 -~ 90 ~, '~ 106 ~-- 149 418 274 ran ve 25 305 224 '~ 500 ~- 237 ~r Point Blvd ~ '~ 409 679 ~' 1 634 453 44 1374 725 317 1 '~ 1 1 ~- ,~ 00 1746 ~' ~ 1 0 -~ 84 124 0 327 ~ Home Depot Project Site NOT TO SCALE N 554 90 ,~ 15 .. 2 j 193 6 516 40 1 '~ 2 `` 4 T ~ Office 191 15 and R8~D L Operation 501 17 p 14 ~ 1 t ~' 202 5 -~ 67 42 91 r 905 \ VI R Gr r 105 J~ 2148 Figure 11-10 I Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-52 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR '~ 35 I 58 531 440 ~-- 141 ~ ~ 879 ~ Ten'abay Ph 3 Access 59 ~} ~- 228 --- 112 ~ I 384 541 49 1473 630 f Ten'abay Ph 3 Access 83 ~ ~1 232 ~. 309 842 m o 23 1682 m Terrabay ~ + -e Ph 3 Access 275 ~ m m 924 576 457 L 600 I 4 ~--1174 Sister Cities Blvd ~ 245 90 ~ ~~~~ 269 135 244 523 -- 282 I 65 ~ m 560 505 539 •~ 1 ~• 455 ~ 123 -- 100 ~, L 233 1097 ~- 403 798 ran ve 95 480 $ L 2129 ~-- 1178 'r Point Blvd ~ `` 1698 638 ~' ~ 8 284 -- 302 0 41 198 ~- 1803 192 5 '~ 5 j ~- ,` 13 1050,' ~ I 5 --- 340 364 0 197 Home ~' Depot Project Site N0T TO SCRLE N 36/7 22 ,~ 75 6 ~ I ~ r ~ 629 363 10 ~ 1 ~• 14 ~ Office 590 4 and R8~D Operation 1 370 7 0 l ~- ~ 5 t ~' 573 2 -~ 108 r 2395 43 136 ~ ~ ? Gran 80 ~ 680 Figure 11-11 I Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP PM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-54 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 11.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds: Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions: ~ 1) The Project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system. 2) Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and volumes would be increased by at least 2 percent. 3) 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 2 percent. 4) Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. 5) 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. 6) 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. 7) The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 50th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 50th percentile queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (City of South San Francisco criteria). 8) The proposed Project would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing between intersections to unacceptable levels or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing between intersections was already at unacceptable lengths, the Project would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (Caltrans criteria). 9) Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway or a freeway ramp from LOS E to LOS F with at least a 1 percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation. 10) The Project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-55 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION '~~ 11) If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through various parts of the Project site. ~! 12) If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant safety concern would be created. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Home Depot trip generation was developed using trip rates for "Home Improvement Superstores" contained in the traffic engineering profession's standard source of trip rate data, Trip Generation 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. In consultation with City staff, average trip rates were then increased by 25 percent in order to provide a safety factor for impact analysis. Table 11-15A presents gross trip rates that would be expected due to a Home Depot store. The net increase in traffic from the Project site for the near term horizon was then determined by subtracting the minor level of trip generation associated with the existing Levitz furniture operation from that of the proposed Home Depot. As shown in Table 11-15B, the net increase in traffic from the Project site with Home Depot replacing Levitz furniture uses would be expected to be about 100 net new inbound and 85 net new outbound trips during the AM peak traffic hour, with about 160 net new inbound and 185 net new outbound trips during the PM peak traffic hour. For the year 2020 long term horizon, the Project site has been Projected in the East of 101 traffic model to contain high-rise office or research and development activities. These uses, assumed in place for the 2020 Base Case analysis, would have a higher level of trip generation than the existing Levitz furniture activities. As shown in Table 11-15C, the net increase in traffic from the Project site with Home Depot replacing office/R&D uses would be expected to be about 70 net fewer inbound and 55 net new outbound trips during the AM peak traffic hour, with about 135 net new inbound and 45 net new outbound trips during the PM peak traffic hour. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-56 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 11-15A HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS 2-WAY TRIPS INBOUND OUTB OUND INBOUND OUTBOUND USE SIZE RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL Home De of 125,794 S .FT. 29.8 40 3750 .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 Date Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Table 11-15B HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN NEAR TERM HORIZON TRIP GENERATION-HOME DEPOT MINUS EXISTING SITE USE (LEVITZ FURNITURE) AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND Home De of 103 86 181 205 Existin Site Use -4 -2 -20 -19 Net Change in Site Trip Generation 99 84 161 186 Source: Crane Transportation Group Table 11-15C HOME DEPOT SITE NET CHANGE IN YEAR 2020 TRIP GENERATION-HOME DEPOT MINUS OFFICE/R&D USES AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS USE INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND Home De of 103 86 181 205 Office/R&D -173 -32 -46 -161 Net Change in Site Trip Generation (-70) +54 +135 +44 Source: Crane Transportation Group HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-57 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Distribution patterns of existing Levitz traffic were based upon existing AM and PM peak period turn movement counts at Project driveways, while distribution patterns of office/R&D traffic Projected to be generated by the Project site by 2020 were obtained from the City's East of 101 traffic model. Distribution patterns for Home Depot traffic were developed by Crane Transportation Group in consultation with City staff based upon the Projected service area of the store (San Francisco/Brisbane to the north, the U.S.101 corridor to Burlingame to the south and South San Francisco on the east and west), knowledge of existing nearby Home Depot operations (San Mateo and Colma) and attractive access routes based upon roadway/freeway congestion during commute periods. Overall, Home Depot traffic was Projected to distribute in the following patterns. HOME DEPOT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT IN OUT U.S.101 Freeway & Bayshore Blvd. North 30% 30% 27% 31 U.S.101 Freeway South 20% 20% 21% 23% West of U.S.101 Freeway Sister Cities/Grand Avenue 40% 40% 39% 42% East of U.S.101 Freeway 10% 10% 13% 4% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Resultant weekday year 2006 Base Case Home Depot AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 11-12 and 11-13, respectively, while year 2020 Base Case + Home Depot AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented in Figures 11-14 and 11-15, respectively. Only minor levels of PM peak hour Home Depot traffic were projected to be captured from Base Case (background) traffic on the streets within the Oyster Point interchange or on the U.S. 101 freeway. No passby or diverted linked trip capture was projected during the AM peak hour. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-58 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR I I I Sister I I ,~ 20 9059 508 330 ~ 339 1 ~. t ~' 227 45 1335 r~ ~ 22 155 3410 352 ~ 247 1 ~- j- 93 as Blvd 120 ~' ~1 1122 -- 45130 ` 135 ~, 7740 1 a m 8420 1. t- 123 105 375 748 ~- 129 ~ 142 1~- ,216 220 J' vrana Ave 214 -- ~ 295 229 70 ~, t 8345 I 7515 T 8859 '~ 305 ~-- 110 r Point Blvd '` 290 470 767 -- 540 252 55 1078 204 '~ 0 62~ ~ 4 ~ O 1250,' ~ I 0 ~ 50 135 0 94 ~, Home Depot Project Site -!., 55 40 53 r 570 \VI R GrS r 81 J~ 1110 NOT TO SCALE N 24~ 57 '~ 55 ~ 3 I ~ ,` 1 0 4 220 24 1 '!- 16 ,` 10 4 t ~' ~ 118 15 228 2 o • ~- L 1 ~ t ~' 132 1 Figure 11-12 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-60 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 7238 NOT TO SCALE I 456 350 'L 30 1 1 01 I 4 ~ 508 i t ~ t N I 284 170 9768 275 I ~ m ~ ~ o I ~ m 6945 t I ~ 189 1 8060 '~ 1302 350 395 219 f-- 903 ~-- 776 Sister Cities Blvd 4 '~ 220 Oyster Point Blvd '` 1272 85 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2405-~ ~ I (~ 403 -- 130180 273 400 53615 179 I 60 ~ '~ 0 219 14~ ~ 4 ~ 0 248 100 L 115 * ,! ~ ,` s I 555 ,' ~ I 0 --- 146 316 0 347 5 m 129 ~, Z 41 ~ 218 36 ~ 22 I Q Home 1 4 t ~- Depot ~ 311 17 1 Project ' 8544 ~ 8744 site 238 2 0 ~ 1 ,~ 1 101 ~ ~- I ~. 327 ~ 296 187 430 237 ~- 345 688 .~ 1 ~• ,~ s86 198 ~ ~ranaAVe 99 '~ 75 465 21 2 145 -~ 93 27 r 1895 120~~ ? Grar 72 ~ 386 Figure 11-13 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2006 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-62 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR I 3g 787 398 Terrabay ~ 4 Ph 3 Access 1~ 51 --- I 14 ~, 39 12,l63 I Terrabay ..~.1 Ph 3 Access 22 -~' 61 ~, 10 1314 I Terrabay Ph 3 Access 77 229 446 716 ~l~ Sister Cities Blvd I 322 ~ 1473 --- I 100 ~, 530 -~' 404 -- 90 ~, '~ ~n Home Depot Project Site NOT TO SCALE N 523 57 '~ 55 3 ,` 18 4 502 24 l 4 '~ 16 ,~ 10 1 ~ ~ 186 15 510 2 0 l ~- ~ 1 r t ~ ^ I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 160 4151621 ~l~ L 500 ~-- 237 414 9 ~_ 1377 Figure 11-14 Year 2020 Base Case + Project AM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-64 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR '!- 35 5g 546 440 ~ 141 I ~ 4 901 r Ten'abay Ph 3 Access 59 t (~ 228 ~ I 112 ~, 543 384 49 1510 630 I Ten'abay Ph 3 Access 83 ~ ~ 1 232 ~ 309 844 o 23 1719 'm ~' Terrabay " i Ph 3 Access 275 m m 576 I 92 4 6 ~ ~ , ~ 221 Sister Cities Blvd r 255 I 90 ~ ~ I 269 ~ 135 253 561 ---- 282 I 65 ~, a m I L 233 1097 560 505 541 ~-- 404 •~ 1 ~- 801 I 455 ,' ran ve 1 130 --- g 480 01 100 ~, Hnma f)Pnn4 FIR NOT TO SCALE N 'L 2125 •- 1175 'r Point Blvd ~ `` 1710 638 J ~ ~- 2386 903200 384 '~. 5 1801 290 5 ~ 3 1050,' ~ I 5 --- 310 432 0 215 Home '~ Depot Project Site 406 100 ~ 115 ,` 6 „~ 5 376 36 t- 41 j ,~ 22 4 t ~' m 591 17 3 396 2 p L 1 ~ l ~- t ~' 607 1 -!., 115 40 r 2390 145 \ ~ R Grar ~c 92 J~ 680 I CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 11-15 Year 2020 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-66 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION BASE CASE + PROJECT INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND CONTROL Figure 11-6 presents year 2006 Base Case and Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and control, while Figure 11-7 presents year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and control. As shown, Base Case + Project intersection geometrics and control are projected to remain the same as Base Case conditions for both horizon years, including the three project access driveways. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS YEAR 2006 Impact 11-1 Project Trip Generation Will Exceed 100 Trips During the AM and PM Peak Hours The proposed Project would generate more than 100 net new trips than existing site uses during the AM and PM peak hours (± 185 more trips during the AM peak hour and ±350 more trips during the PM peak hour than the existing Levitz furniture operation). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) Projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-1 The Project sponsors 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 th'e number of trips that may be credited fox each TDM measure. Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the ± 185 net new AM peak hour trips and ±350 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. Since the majority of vehicles associated with Home Depot will be retail customers and not employees (and not influenced by typical TDM measures), the Project applicant and C/CAG will need to meet and develop a program agreeable to both parties. Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the Project's impact to aless-than-significant level. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-67 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 11-2 Year 2006 Intersection Level of Service Impacts Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOS E to LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%). This would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-2 There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-3 Year 2006 Freeway Mainline Impacts Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that 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 with one exception. During the PM peak hour, northbound U.S.101 north of the Oyster Point interchange would have Base Case LOSE operation changed to LOS F operation with the addition of traffic from Home Depot (±50 vehicles). However, the increment would be less than a one percent increase in northbound traffic (a 0.5 percent increase) and would be a less- than-significant impact. For those freeway segments Projected to have Base Case LOS F operation, the proposed Project would result in aless-than-significant increase 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 increased by 0.2%. This would be aless-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-3 No mitigation required. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-68 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1 : TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 11-4 Year 2006 Freeway Ramp Impacts Table 11-5 shows that the proposed Project would not result in any freeway ramp having AM or PM peak hour Base Case volumes increased above capacity limits. This would be ales-than-significant impact. Mitigation 11-4 No mitigation required. Impact 11-5 Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts 50`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. PM PEAK HOUR 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (12.8%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left/through lane would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation 11-5A: 50`'' Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 195 feet, less HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-69 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION than the available 255 feet of storage. This impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. 2) 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 to Base Case conditions. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR 1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM PEAK HOUR 2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also, acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. 3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation 11-5B: 95``' Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-70 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 225 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th percentile queuing in the westbound left turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet, which is the planned available storage length. This impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. 2) 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 to Base Case conditions. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. YEAR 2020 Impact 11-6 Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two percent (1.1%). At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent (0.6%). However, during the PM peak hour operation would also remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.1%), resulting in a significant impact at this location. Project traffic would also produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain LOS F and volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.6%). These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 11-6 Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Provide a fair share contribution to the same mitigations required of the Terrabay Phase 3 development. Restripe the northbound Airport Boulevard approach to provide a second left turn lane. Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Improvements to the eastbound approach should also provide adjustments to the north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard, if needed, to allow safe turn movements, which will be conducted by Project drivers. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-71 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds vehicle delay The impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case conditions or better. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-7 Year 2020 Freeway Mainline Impacts Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that the proposed project would not result in any U.S.101 freeway segment near the Oyster Point interchange receiving a significant impact by 2006. No segment would receive more than afive-tenths of one percent traffic increase due to the project. Therefore, since background traffic on the U.S.101 freeway will increase from 2006 to 2020, and the percent project traffic contributions to overall volumes will decrease, no freeway segment will receive a significant impact due to project traffic in 2020. This would be aless-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-7 No mitigation required. Impact 11-8 Year 2020 Freeway Ramp Impacts Table 11-6 shows that 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 Home Depot (in comparison to office/R&D uses Projected for the site) would result in either a net decrease or no measurable change in traffic. AM PEAK HOUR • U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased from about 2,075 down to about 2,010 vehicles per hour and operation would improve from an unacceptable LOS F to an acceptable LOS E. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-72 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PM PEAK HOUR • U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard would have volumes remaining about 2,965 vehicles per hour. Operation would remain LOS F. • U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue would have volumes decreased from about 2,145 down to about 2,115 vehicles per hour. Operation would remain LOS F. This would be aless-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11-8 No mitigation required. Impact 11-9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts 50`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±4.4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a ± 4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±4.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive a ± 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-73 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50`'' Percentile Queue Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) • Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. • Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. 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 Base Case conditions. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at three intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 7.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 4.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have a demand increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-74 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a ± 4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±4.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±8.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a ± 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay North Access • The off-ramp lanes would receive a 2.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95`'' Percentile Queue Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) • Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a combined through/right turn lane. • Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/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 Base Case conditions. Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay Access • Provide a fair share contribution toward lengthening the Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane (from 350 to 550 feet) in conjunction with Terrabay providing an additional lane on the eastbound intersection approach. The impact at this intersection would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-75 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 11-10 Project Access Impacts The proposed Project would have three driveway connections to Dubuque Avenue. The north and central driveway connections would be in the same locations as driveways now serving Levitz furniture. The Home Depot southerly driveway would be in the same location as Levitz's most southerly driveway. The existing Levitz fourth driveway connection to Dubuque Avenue just north of the Levitz southerly driveway would be eliminated. Speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour northbound and 30 to 35 miles per hour southbound. The north Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, allowing one inbound and outbound lane. The existing ±150-foot-long left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this intersection would be maintained. It would provide storage for about six to seven autos. Dubuque Avenue has two northbound through lanes and one southbound through lane at this location. However, on-street parking is now allowed adjacent to the Home Depot site between the north and central driveways. If this parking is occupied, northbound flow is limited to a single lane. The central Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, also allowing one wide inbound and outbound lane. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide just south of this driveway and widens to 38 feet just north of this driveway. The southerly Home Depot driveway would be 57 feet wide, allowing adequate room for truck turn movements. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to the intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide in the vicinity of this driveway. Turn Lane Storage Requirement Evaluation has been conducted to determine whether the existing 150-foot left turn lane on the southbound approach to the northerly Home Depot driveway would provide adequate storage for expected demand. Based upon two separate methodologies, by 2020 the 95th percentile queue would not be expected to exceed three to four vehicles. The existing turn pocket, with room for six to seven vehicles, would provide adequate storage for this demand. Methodology #1 Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignali~ed Intersections, by John T. Gard, ITE Journal, November 2001-see Appendix B Table 6. 95th percentile queue = AM Peak: 3 car lengths PM Peak : 3 car lengths HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-76 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Methodology #2 Number of vehicles, on average, arriving each two minutes. 95th percentile queue = AM Peak: 2 car lengths PM Peak : 4 car lengths This would be ales-than-significant impact. Turn Lane Warrants The Home Depot southerly driveway would never have volume levels warranting the provision of a left turn lane. However, by 2020 PM, peak hour volumes at the central Home Depot driveway would be exceeding warrant criteria' for the provision of a southbound left turn lane. AM peak volumes in 2020 would also be approaching warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. Sight Lines at Project Driveway Connections to Dubuque Avenue Vehicle speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour northbound and 30 to 35 miles per hour southbound. Minimum stopping sight distances for travel speeds of 40 and 45 miles per hour are 305 and 360 feet, respectively, based upon guidelines in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highsvayr and Street, 2004? Both the central and northerly Home Depot driveways will connect to Dubuque Avenue on the inside of a curve. This will require that direct line of site between drivers on Dubuque Avenue and vehicles exiting the project site at both driveways extend through landscaping along the site frontage. This presents the possibility that landscaping may interfere with required sight lines. Adequate sight lines do not exist to allow for cars to safely turn left from the northern driveway. In addition, if on-street parking between the project's central and northerly driveway is occupied, these parked vehicles may also interfere with minimum required sight lines. This would be a significant impact. 1 Intersection Channeti~ation Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix B. z American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-77 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 11-10 Left Turn Lane • Revise the Project site plan layout in the vicinity of the central driveway in order to widen Dubuque Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 75 and preferably 100 feet long. Sight Lines • Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway. • The City of South San Francisco shall post speed limit signs of 30 to 35 miles per hour along Dubuque Avenue in the vicinity of Home Depot for both travel directions. • Prohibit left turns out of the northerly Home Depot driveway. • The City of South San Francisco shall prohibit on-street parking along the Project's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage. • If needed, consider provision of "all way stop" control at the Project's central driveway intersection. These measures would reduce the Project's impact to aless-than-signif'tcctnt level. Impact 11-11 On-Site Circulation The Project Site Plan by Greenberg Farrow shows all internal parking aisles will be 25 feet wide and serve 90-degree parking. This meets City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. The central driveway is channelized well into the site and should operate acceptably with customer traffic. The southerly driveway will be used primarily by delivery trucks and a truck maneuvering area to back into unloading docks is provided just internal to the site. This area should also function acceptably assuming it is marked as a truck unloading/employee parking area only. The site plan also shows, however, two internal locations which, as designed, will produce significant safety and operational concerns. Location one is just internal to the parking lot at the northerly Project driveway (which is Projected to be the busiest site driveway). Inbound drivers have only one and a half car lengths of channelization between Dubuque Avenue and the first internal parking aisle intersection before being confronted with a decision to make a left or right turn. Flow into parking aisles leading towards the entrance to the store is offset to the left and right. This will lead to driver confusion and delay even before taking into account outbound traffic maneuvering from the various parking aisles to get onto Dubuque Avenue. An inbound driver that needs to stop HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-78 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION immediately upon entering the site could result in the next inbound vehicle extending onto Dubuque Avenue. This first internal intersection would be very difficult to adequately stop sign control and would result in significant safety and operational concerns. Location two is in the northern section of the parking garage where the ramp serving the second level parking comes to ground level parallel to another parking aisle 20 feet to the west. A third parking aisle also joins into this area. As with location one above, providing sign control for safe vehicle movements in this northern area will be difficult. These would be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 11-11 • Revise the parking lot layout to provide at least three and preferably four car lengths channelization and storage for inbound vehicles at the north Project driveway (75 to 100 feet) before the first internal intersection. Two inbound lanes at least 75 feet long would be preferable. Design the first internal intersection such that diagonal movements to access another parking aisle are not possible. • Provide astriping/signing plan acceptable to the City Engineer to acceptably control vehicular movements at the parking aisle/second floor ramp intersection area on the ground floor in the northern part of the parking garage. Implementation of these measures will reduce the impacts to aless-than-significant level. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 11-79 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 1: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT PAGE 1 1-80 DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 12 l~Tl LITI ES 12.1 SETTING WATER SUPPLY South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company, Bayshore District (CWSC) serves that portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of the city's area, including the project site. According to its website, the CWSC uses eight water wells to pump 1.5 million gallons of groundwater per day for its 16,600 customers in South San Francisco.' The CWSC also serves 36,100 users in San Carlos and San Mateo, with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. To meet the needs of its users in the Bayshore District and beyond, the CWSC buys water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The company's current contract with the SFPUC entitles the city to 42.3 million gallons per day (mgd) per year. Water use in South San Francisco has increased steadily over the past few decades at a rate faster than increases in the number of users, resulting in a per capita increase in water consumption. Water use has rebounded significantly from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when an extended period of drought and resulting conservation measures brought water use levels down considerably. According to the General Plan, while residential users comprised approximately 90% of the water accounts in South San Francisco between 1986 and 1996, less than half of the total consumption could be attributed to these users. On the other hand, industrial users comprised only 0.46% of the water accounts but used 11% of the total water, at an average of 3.6 million gallons per user per year. Part of the reason for the high industrial water usage in the city is the predominance of biotechnology firms in the city. Pharmaceutical manufacturing requires extremely pure water, and large quantities of water are used to achieve necessary water purity levels. Commercial users accounted for approximately 10% of total accounts, but used approximately 37% of the total water, for an average of 528,132 gallons per user per year.Z 1 California Water Service Company website z Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco Genera! Plan, 1999, p. 193, Table 5.3-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 12-1 CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day (mgd) to 9.1 mgd. Assuming the SFPUC contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.3 However, while the CWSC has adequate water supply to meet the increased water demand that would be created by the allowed development in the East of 101 Area Plan, this increase would be more than that estimated by the CWSC for the Bayshore District, and would use approximately 24 percent of the district's surplus supply, based on 2010 projection with similar assumptions a Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development allowed under the East of 101 Area Plans The water distribution system in the area was designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. It consists of a network of 12-inch lines in relatively good condition, adequate to serve the 2,500 gallons per minute fire flow requirement and use demands for the land uses planned fox the area. WASTEWATER The South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant was constructed in the early 1970s and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The sewage of both cities is treated there, as is wastewater from Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. The Westborough Water District coordinates sewage treatment for the Westborough portion of South San Francisco under contract with Daly City. As of 1995, the average dry weather flow was 8.33 million gallons per day (MGD), and had increased on average 0.5 MGD per year since 1991. Since 1998 the plant has undergone an expansion in order to accommodate wastewater flows from future development in the city, and work has been undertaken to upgrade the city's trunk sewers, including along East Grand Avenue. The plant expansion has increased the dry weather flow capacity to 13 MGD. These improvements to the wastewater infrastructure have all taken into account, and will satisfy, increased demand on the system resulting from future development in the city, including the proposed Project. ~ s Dyett and Bhatia, p. 194. a Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994, p. 97 s Brady and Associates, p. 98. a Raul Dacanay, Assistant Engineer, City of South San Francisco, personal communication, May 4, 2005. PAGE 12-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. However, Impact 7-1 in the Hydrology section notes that the Project would lead to increases in peak runoff and peak discharge to the Bay. To account for this increase, Mitigation Measure 7-1a and 7-1b have been proposed, requiring a Storm Drain Analysis and Revised Storm Drain Plan. SOLID WASTE Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. The Scavenger Company's facility is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility gives the Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge. With an expected buildout population of 67,000 residents in South San Francisco, the city will generate approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the assumed generation rates used by San Mateo County. 12.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds for measuring a Project's environmental impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines: • Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? • Would the Project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City's water or wastewater treatment and collection facilities? • Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? • Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 12-3 CHAPTER 12: UTILITIES • Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? • Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? • Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS The proposed Project's wastewater discharge would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in demand for potable water that could not be fulfilled by the California Water Service Company, as stated in the South San Francisco General Plan. The wastewater treatment plant that serves the city and the trunk sewer system that would serve the Project site have recently been, or are in the process of being expanded and upgraded. This work will ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment service over the city's buildout horizon. Because the existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, it is capable of accommodating large amounts of storm water from the large amount of impervious surfaces in the area. Thus, any redevelopment of existing development, including on the Project site, will generally not increase runoff. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on utility service and infrastructure in the City of South San Francisco and East of 101 Area. LANDFILL CAPACITY Given the large amount of space still available at Ox Mountain, and the option. of opening Apanolio Canyon after Ox Mountain is no longer available, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on solid waste service capacity. PAGE 12-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 13 ALTERNATIVES 13.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, 1970, as amended, Section 15126.6) requires an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the preferred option. CEQA also requires that the EIR explain why specific project alternatives that were considered at one time in developing the project proposal were rejected in favor of the preferred option. The selection of alternatives is to be guided by the provision of reasonable choices and the promotion of informed decision making and informed public participation. An EIR need not evaluate alternatives that would have effects that cannot be determined, or fox which implementation would be remote and speculative. CEQA also requires that the EIR specifically address a "no project" alternative within this discussion and that an "environmentally superior" alternative be identified (Section 15126.6 [e]). Where the "no project" alternative is also identified as the "environmentally superior" alternative, another alternative which would represent the "environmentally superior" in the absence of the "no project" alternative should then be identified. The preferred option is the proposed Project, as fully described in Chapter 3 of this EIR (Project Description). The environmental consequences associated with this preferred option are fully addressed in Chapters 4 through 12 of this EIR. In addition to the proposed Project, this EIR includes a discussion of the following alternatives: • No Project Alternative, which would leave the Project site in its current state, and • 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative 13.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today, an existing commercial building occupied by Levitz Furniture and used to warehouse and sell furniture. This alternative would maintain the site's Planned Commercial General Plan use designation, but the retail use would not be as intense or economically beneficial (sales tax revenue) to the City, HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-1 CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES an issue which is addressed in numerous General Plan goals and policies. It would also prevent the establishment of the large amount of landscaping being proposed for the site by the Project applicant. The No Project Alternative would not result in the environmental impacts described in this EIR document, particularly those identified as significant and unavoidable. Table 11-15B shows that there would be approximately 185 fewer AM Peak Hour trips and 350 fewer PM Peak Hour trips than the proposed Project, resulting in lower air pollutant vehicle emissions and traffic levels of service. The No Project site would also not introduce several of the hazardous materials that would be stored and used on site as part of the Project, and would maintain the seven protected trees that will be need to be replaced. As such, it would be environmentally superior. 0.50 FLOOR AREA RATIO ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the Project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced from the currently proposed 0.38 FAR for the 125,794 square foot Project, to a square footage of 62,897 square feet, corresponding to a FAR of 0.19. As the applicant has indicated it would not be economically feasible for a Home Depot to occupy such a small building based on its standard store size and business model (the average Home Depot store is about 110,000 square feet), the alternative would have to be an alternate retail store. This reduced development intensity would produce fewer vehicle trips and less air pollutant emissions. Fewer vehicle trips would result in better freeway Levels of Service and better Levels of Service on street intersections near the Project site, but would still not completely mitigate the significant impacts detailed in the Transportation and Circulation Chapter. This alternative would still provide extensive landscaping on the site (City design standards would mandate this), and would also require a smaller amount of vehicle parking facilities. However, it would effectively prohibit the Project Applicant from occupying the site, and most alternate retail uses, especially at 50% of the Proposed Floor Area Ratio of the proposed project, would not generate as much sales tax revenue as the proposed Project. 13.3 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Consideration of the alternatives to the proposed Home Depot Project reveals that the environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative, since it would result in no new environmental impacts. However, should the site retain its existing use as a Levitz Furniture warehouse and retail store, it would not meet the goals, policies, or visions of the City's General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan as well as the proposed Project would. However, in the absence of the No Project Alternative, the 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would be designated as environmentally superior. Implementation of this reduced intensity alternative would lead to milder (environmentally superior) environmental impacts, but would PAGE 13-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 13: ALTERNATIVES likely be economically unfeasible for the Project Applicant. The applicant has a standard template for most of its stores, which includes a minimum warehouse size to be economically viable and carry their full line of products, and reducing to a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would likely make the project unfeasible. The applicant would be required to seek an alternate site in the City of South San Francisco or another economically feasible location. The applicant currently has two stores in Colma and another in San Mateo, and was recently approved for a store in the City of San Francisco. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-3 This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 13-4 14 IMPACT OVERVIEW 14.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following Project related impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: Impact 11-2 Year 2006 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 1 and 2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOSE to LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%). There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-5 Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. 50``' Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-1 PM PEAK HOUR 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (12.8%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left/through lane would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. PM PEAK HOUR 3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-6 Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two percent (1.1%). At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent. However, during the PM peak hour operation would also remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.1%), resulting in a significant impact at this location. Project traffic would also produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-2 CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain LOS F and volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.6%). 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 improve operation to Base Case conditions or better. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 11-9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. 50`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) • Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. • Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. 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 Base Case conditions. 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at three intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-3 CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) • Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a combined through/right turn lane. • Stripe a second left turn lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. These measures would not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/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 Base Case conditions. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 14.2 IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT As indicated in the DEIR Analysis, there would be no significant Project-related environmental impacts associated with the following topic areas: • Air Quality • Geology and Soils • Hazardous Materials • Hydrology • Land Use • Noise • Public Services • Utilities PAGE 14-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW 14.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by the proposed Project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future generations to specific uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources. Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations The Project would commit future generations to new development at the Project site. The property would be converted from a furniture showroom and warehouse use to a retail home improvement store land use. Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions Impact 11-2 Year 2006 Freeway Level of Service. Tables 1 and 2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOSE to LOS F and increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%). There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by city of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. These would be Significant impacts. Impact 11-5 Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. 50`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result ul significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-5 CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW 95`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2006. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. These would be significant impacts. Impact 11-6 Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but three analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by less than two percent (1.1 %). At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent. However, during the PM peak hour operation would also remain LOS F, but volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.1%), resulting in a significant impact at this location. Project traffic would also produce a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain LOS F and volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.6%). This would be a significant impact. Impact 11-9 Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. 50`'' Percentile Queue Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-7 and 11-8 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. PAGE 14-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW 95``' Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed Project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at three intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. All intersection approach lanes shown in Tables 11-9 and 11-10 with unacceptable Base Case queuing that indicate an increased vehicle storage demand with the addition of Project traffic that are not listed below would not have volumes increased by more than two percent, the significance criteria level. These would be significant impacts. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. No agricultural lands would be converted and no access to mining reserves would be lost with implementation of the Project. The Project would result in the consumption of some nonrenewable resources during construction and operation, such as electricity and construction materials. 14.4 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed Project would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local population, since it would not result in the construction of any new housing units. The proposed Project would not require any major increases in the capacity of local infrastructure which might later be used to support new housing development, and would not result in the extension of infrastructure into areas which might ultimately support new housing. 14.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the Project evaluated in the EIR together with other Projects causing related impacts. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several Projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the Project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future Projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant Projects taking place over a period of time. As the discussions in Chapter 4 (Air Quality) and Chapter 11 (Transportation) indicate, the development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent cumulative increase in regional emissions of air pollutants and to reduced freeway Levels of Service. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 14-7 CHAPTER 14: IMPACT OVERVIEW As noted on Page 4-9 of the Air Quality chapter, the URBEMIS2002 Model was used to quantify the emissions associated with the Project, and to determine if it could result in potentially significant regional emissions. Based on the estimate of 4,690 daily two way trips (Table 11-15A), the Project's emissions for ROG, NOX, and PM10 were found to be below the significance threshold. So, while new vehicle trips would result in new regional emissions, the Project's emissions would represent a less than significant impact. Chapter 11 discusses the Project's impact on reduced freeway Levels of Service in the years 2006 (page 11-69, Impact 11-3) and 2020 (page 11-72, Impact 11-7). As discussed in Chapter 11, Tables 11-3 and 11-4 show that 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 with one exception, and that would be a less than significant increase. As background traffic on the U.S.101 freeway will increase from 2006 to 2020, and the percent Project traffic contributions to overall volumes decreases, no freeway segment will receive a significant impact due to Project traffic in 2020. As such, the Project's cumulative impact on freeway Levels of Service will be less than significant. PAGE 14-8 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 15 REFERENCES 15.1 REPORT PREPARERS Lamphier -Gregory 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, Ca. 94606 510-535-6690 Joan Lamphier, President David Levitan, Planner 15.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY Association of Bay Area Governments, http://www.abag.com (Seismic and Other Hazards Analysis Pages), 2005. Association of Bay Area Governments, Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, June 1981. ATC Associates Inc., March 12, 1999, Environmental Site Assessment, Levity Furniture, Located at 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California ATC Associates Inc., May 7, 1999, Asbestos Survey for the Levity Building Located at 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California ATC Associates Inc., September 27, 2001, Geophysical Survey and Limited Subsurface Investigation, Levity Furniture Store, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California ATC Associates Inc., September 27, 2001, Report Addendum to Geophysical Survey and Limited Subsurface Investigation, Levity Furniture Store, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, Calfornia ATC Associates Inc., December 4, 2001, Phase 7 Environmental Site Assessment of Levity Furniture Store, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, 2001- 2003. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 15-1 CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Permit Handbook, 2005. http: / /www.baagmd.gov/pmt/handbook/default.htm Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for StormwaterQuality Protection, 1999. Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California: A digital database, USGS Open-file Report 98-354, 1998. Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July 1994. California Division of Mines and Geology, Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the South San Francisco Quadrangle, 1982. California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, 1994. California Division of Mines and Geology with U.S. Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, 2002. California Geological Survey, Fault Evaluation Reports Prepared Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, CGS CD 2002-01, 2002. California Stortnwater Quality Association (CASQA), New Development and Redevelopment Handbook, 2003. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial and Commercial, January 2003. California Water Service Company, http://www.calwater.com, Customer Service Section, Find Your District, 2005 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Municipal Code: Tree Preservation, adopted June 28, 2000. Crane Transportation Group, Tra~zc Impact Report.• 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue, November, 2001. Crane Transportation Group, Tra~ic Impact Reporr.• 345 East Grand Avenue, November, 2001. PAGE 15-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES Department of Water Resources (DWR), California's Groundwater- Bulletin 118. Updated 2004, 1975. Dyett &Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999. Dyett &Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, p.4-2, 4- 10, 4-15, 1997. Environ International Corporation, Results of Phase I Site Assessment, L.evit~ Furniture Store, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California, January 6, 2005 Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Sanborn Map Report, February 18, 1999 Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Radius Map with Geocheck database, March 01, 1999 Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Radius Map with Geocheck database, September 05, 2001 Environmental Data Resources Incorporated, Radius Map with Geocheck database, October 06, 2004 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Bate Map, City of South San Francisco, Calfornia, September 1981 Fehr &Peers/Lamphier-Gregory, Genentech Building 31 Draft Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration, February 2005. Fehr & Peers, Genentech Site Access -Buildings 33 dam' 37, Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37), December 2003. Greenberg Farrow Architects, Development Plan Sheets for The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Apri129, 2005 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard O~zce Projects Draft Tra~icAnalysis Report, October 2001. Hygeia Laboratories, PL.M Analysis of Bulk Samples (Asbestos Testing Results to ATC Associates Inc.), May 06, 1999 Knudsen, KL., Noleer, J.S., Sowers, J.M., Lettis, W.R., Quaternary Geology and Liquefaction Susceptibility, San Francisco, California 1:100,000Quadrangle: ADigital Database, USGS Open-File Report 97-715, 1997. HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 15-3 CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Of~ice Bd9°D Project Draft EII~, September 2004. Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard O~ce Kd~'D Project Final EIK, February 2005. Morehouse Associates, Britannia East Grand Pr ject (Fuller O Brien Propery) Kecirculation Draft EII~, February 2002. Rinker Materials Corporation. Brief on Tier I I~esultr: Hydrodynamic Devices Technology Acceptance and Keciprocity Partnership (TAKI') Program. Online. Last updated May 11, 2005. Available: http://www.rinker.com/Stormcegtor/downloads/Tier1resultsHvdroDevices pdf San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundavater, 2003 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. I~aterQuality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin, 1995 Treadwell and Rollo, Geotechnical Feasibility Study, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, August 8, 2002 Twining Laboratories, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Home Depot, SS29070, 900 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, California, January 11, 2005 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet Hydrodynamic Separators, EPA 832-F00-017, September 1999 United States Geological Survey (USGS), P~liminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and parts of the Hunter's Point 7.5'Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, Calfornia, USGS Open-file Report 98-354, 1998. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Stormivater Technology: Stormceptor Fact Sheet No. 4, February 2003 Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., Barron, A.D., San Francisco Bay Kegion Landslide Folio Part C -Summary Distribution of Slides and Earthjlosvs in the San Francisco Bay Kegion, Calfornia, USGS Open File Deport 97-745 C, 1997. Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Period of Monthly Climate Summary for San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769). Period of I~ecord.• 7/ 1 / 1948 to 12/31 /2004. Online. 20 June. 2005. Available: htt6://rvsvzv.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMAINpl2casFoa+sfo Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Kegion: 2002-2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214, 2003 PAGE 15-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Castain, Don, Per telephone conversation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa Engineering and Don Castain, City of South San Francisco Building Inspector, 27 June 2005. Munar, Kelvin. Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist at Questa Engineering and Kelvin Munar, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department, 21 June 2005. Nakashima, Stevan, Per telephone conversation between Kelly White, Environmental Scientist at Questa Engineering and Stevan Nakashima, Consulting Civil Engineer, 15 June 2005. Powell, Michelle, Per telephone conservation between Joseph Farrow, Staff Geologist at Questa Engineering and Michelle Powell, San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, August 2, 2005 Rudhel, Cathy. Per telephone conversation between Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering, and Cathy Rudhel, City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control. August 1, 2005 Shaw, Caroline, Per email correspondence from Caroline Shaw, Greenberg Farrow Due Diligence Coordinator, to Anna Rensi, Assistant Environmental Engineer at Questa Engineering, August 2, 2005 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PAGE 15-5 CHAPTER 15: REFERENCES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 15-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 16 APPENDICES APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION APPENDIX B 'TRAFFIC 'TABLES AND EQUATIONS APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT, PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS EMISSIONS PAGE 16-1 APPENDIX A NOTICE OF PREPARATION RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION PAGE A-1 Oct 06 2005 6:D2RM CITY OF SSF PLANNING DIVI 650=629-6639 p.2 . ' :- ~ - OEPAR11~ttT Of b1C ~ . AHd t~a1NrTY DE1-ElOP1tEMT . ' PI.ANNINt3 DNtt3iON (~ an~b FAX yeso! btFax+o August S, 2005 ~ ~ Ccatified Mail # 7041 11 AD 000 0464 5703 .State paa~nghouse, Offica of Planning and R,eseaarh 1400 Tanth 5treet/P.O. Box 3044 SaQameato. CA 95812-3444 SnhJed; Noticx ar Preparation, Home Depot Projoct, Envlronmea<tal Impact Report' Citgor sontL San I+Yandaeo ~ . Leal AgeACy: ~ Conaultvg I~rm: Agency Name: City of South San Francisco ~ Name:. Lamphierdlregozy . P Divisi~ ' Shroot Address: 315 Maple Avenue Street Addnsa: 1944 Embarcadero South San I!I8~C1BL'A, CA ~ Oakland, CA 94606 . 94080 Mailiag~ P.O. Boot 711 ' Addross: South San GA 94083 C,caotaat: Stave Carlson Coaotact: 7osa Lamphier Tlse purpose of this Nartice of Pxparation (NOP) is to comply wig the Califomnia Eavirasmaental Quality Act (CEQA) and to i~ all inta+estcd paarties th~rt the City sf South San Francisco intea~ds to porepmro an Bun-it~o®antat Impact Repart (BIR) £oc the ' ~ Home Depot Project. Z7ris notice is too regaest comments and guidaacc on the scope and tha content of the eavironmeatal infasmation to ba iacludad is tha Dradt BIIt. Aa initial ~ . asses of ecvirononantal potentially affectod is attached. ~ti:.: Responsible agencies s3i~ould:rommaat an the scopa and voaitmt of the aaviroa~ntal ' info~rnation ~o to their statutory bilitias ia. oo~nection with the proposed ' project, and will Hoed to use the prepsxod~ EIIi is tbcir• peamitfiug aad appcovais. 37b W1P4E AYF?~1llE P.Q d0~ T11 Y017TH arw rAANC18CQ, CJl.4tOe8 f ~ ~ li ~ ~ ' Out 06 2005 8:Q2RM CITY OF SSF PLHMHING AIVI 65Q-829-5639 p.3 Sabja~ Nodica a~fPtep~timi, Hm~x DepotPrajax ~ Fmpact8epotti, Iatoamc.TLe•C~ty of 5onsh SmPraaciaco . Page 2 >~sroxs~ To trot . Dnc #o tltie time Imoite mandated by state law, ymu w:idbm ,response nmrt be saac at the earti,est poss~le dale but s~ la~sr tbmr 30 dayr after receipt of this notice. Pless~...Y~zesnonse tg -~~ve C~t~"c'~'' at address aboavn abarve. StvOPING MRETII~TG . CBQA requires a Lead Agcy to call at bast one scop~ag meeting for a pmpaated project tbat may affect ~roeaya3~ar other iec~itiea under the juxisdictioea ofthe Depaatmant of T~nsport~om, sect for' a p~rojoct of statCarido, regional, oz area-wide sigrni5caace. The bead Agency ahaIl call the acoping meetiaog as Boon as possible, but trot Jatar rises 36 dgya aver recoit+ing'a request for the mooting from the Deparmneat ef?kamsportation (Sectioaa 21083.9 of the Public Rseogn+~es Code. The LadAgency shall pavvide notice of the scopiag moodttg to all. of the ~Ilowing: ~5'ro~Y or city tbaiborders on a. coutrty oar citywitbin which the project is tacated; nay re8pa~bYa agrmcy; ~Y public agency that has,~ia'isdictiaaby few withrespect to thepmjec~ and. anyoorganixation or individual wlic has filed a written regnant ~ tbe.nntice. ~ ' 'The pa+ojxt la~catioas and deacriptioa ar~simn>aarized below. . PRf13E4'T I,QCATION AND BDUNDARIEB Regio~rarllo~ca~fore ~ . Tine Criy of 3au~ SanPraacisco ie located ontlm west shore of the San Francisco Hay, in narthem San Mateo County. The city is built upcm the Bay plain and the zVOZfi>em s pf ~e Coastal Ramgo. So~ith San Francisco is sbrategicaIly ioc~ted a~Ong mayor trsanspartatioon coaidots and laanbs. including US 101, •I~states 1284 ami T 380, BART end Calt~ ~a Uman Pacifio Radlmad {formerly owned by the Bentham Pack ltailroaod) mainline; Baud the San Francisco 7abanational Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive city]andmadt. The regional location ofthe chyis ebowninFigura 1. Projectloe:etfon oadiiolnrda~ea . The Pmj out situ is a ?.C2 acx~o parcel located at 900 Dabugae Avenue, Band is baWndod'on the west and north by :Dnhtu}uo Aveiano Bad Highway lOl..oa tl>a loath by single storlr office buIldings -sari servicts, and to the east by SovthemPacific RailrbadLine rights-0f--way: Iris m the narthweatpartion oftheBast of 101 Area, which oansiats of tine roughly 1,700 ecies o~land in the City of South Sea Francisco east ofli~ighway 101. PRQTB,Ct DESCRIPTION ,The proposed Project world involve the demolitiaoD of ea mristiag 136,63? sq~e foot Levitz pumihue bm'lding end the ca~nstruction trf a 101,2?2 agaare foot Home Depot iLOma improvement warehousa, arI adjonring 24.522 sQuare foot C~rdan Center, and aLava-le{val pmrlcmg ettsutuze providing 426 paticiag spaces. The p~t+.oja~t w~71 r+ogaire a Ure Pamuta Type C Sign Peamit, Planned UmtDevelopmeot Peamit, DemalitioanPaatait, aadBv7dmg Pemoits. Oat 06 2005 8:02RM CITY OF SSF:FtRNNIPIG DIVI 650-629-SS39 p.4 • ~ .. subject Notice ofPreprraRia~. Some Dapat'I'rajeet ImF~t ~t F:om: Tho,Ci~y of SouthBsaFuucieoo Pace 3 • • p ,, ~ ~ Y ~ FK C ~ s P \ .~_ 4 1 ~ ~-~ •~ . ' ~ ~ n t arl~sl~ O ~ Project . ~ . Location ~` o ti. ,~ s , ate. --~ M AT''~~~ .~ i rte: •..`L, '' -:,~ j ~.. ltan e..eh. . ~, ~ g Ge.sa~ i ~ ~ ~ • Sin ~ \ ~ ~ ~~ i~ ~~ a~ ~~ o ~ ~ Fyurs ~ IIEaION~L LOGTlON Oct 06 2005 8:03RM CITY OR SSF PLRMNING DIVI 650-829-6639 Snhjec~ Native o~Piepnsatiao, 8omm Da~aK Ftajoot 8+avaooma~al Smpact FYaan~: 'Ibo-G~ty a~t$outh S+m Fs~m~ . ~4 ENVIItONMEIVTAL FAt:TORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED p.5 The eavn+onmental factors cbeclcedbrlaw wotildbepotentially ~~b3'~Ia'41~ ~~B a# Ieasi one impact that is s'Totantially Signific~ Impact"•aa indicated b3'tha checklist D Aesthetics D F,eoo~u+oes 1~ Air D Bioto ' R,esc~uncea D ~~1 Reeoa~cees ® C3eola ® Hazaords & Aazardans Maxecnals ® Hydralogy/Wate~ O LamdU®dPlaautting D ~ezall~~ ® xoiae v p ® Ptzbiic Seavices D R,~saon ® Uta'litieal5arvia, - O MandatcQy Findiaga pf g• DF~'~'R=~~AITON , 4~a the ba8ia of this initial avalnatian: . D I fiiad that the porapo~ed project COULD •NOT bmie aacgtrificaat o~ct an the emriro~nomoaf~ sad a NLGAT7fVE DFCLARATION wfll beprepaaod. D I find that aldmugh the Ps'cl~~ pavject oonld #save a pg~ifica~ offoct on the caviromamtthazwriII notbo aaigtti£raat otlicct iathis caaeba~useres-iasoms mthep~rojectba~va .beam. made by ax agreed to by the p'roj~ ~- A NIITIGA,TED NEGATIVE DECLARATiONvri1I ba pa+epaiedl~ dtit~epavposedpmjectMAYbsvaalaigpaficant meet m the aavIx+oazmeot, atad as ENVIRONMENTAL Il4~A,GT REPORT is regtdtnd. ®I food ~ t]te Ps'eT~ p~rejoct MAY b~sva s '~oteatially aigaiScami impact" or '~oY aigtvficartualess mitigated" impact on the emvi~e~~brot a~tleast o®e e~eot 1) bas beast adegaately aaalyzed is an earlier docnm~ant pm~tto applicab]a legal atsndasds; cad 2) hee bees adclresaed by mitigates meaeares ba8e~ on rho eaxlior amalysie as deac~'6od on attached sheets. An ENVI'ROItF~NTAI. IMPACT REPORT is iequitxd, but it meat amalyza a~nIythe edfecrts flier remnain m be addressed. • © I'Snd that •althongb, the pavposed project could bavo.a eagnifiasat affect as the etx~romrVeatt, bocattae ail poteetielly aigaificant eff'octs (a) have been aaialyzad adegt>SUeIy is as earlier RIIt a9r NEGATIVE DECLARATION pmtiwmt m applicable sbmdarda, gaud (b) bane avoided or mitigated purso~t to that earlier EII! ar NEGAI7YE DECLARATION, including r+evisiams~ar mitigation that are imposed upon the pr+aposad projeca; nothing further is required. Chief PlaoomQ ~~ ~ Dale --~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Oct 06 2005 9 t O3FiP1 CITY OF SSF PLANI'1I MG D I V I 850-929-66~g .'.., .a ~. . ~~ ~~~~ ~.. . a ., ~ .~ c .~ .~, , , • • •~ • ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ +lF~ ~ ~i i I ~' ~.~ .~ ~R ~ C ,~ ~~ ~~ a o .. ~~~ p.s Q ._ V ~.. LL. C r 91~A~,Op j'-~T~~1IdL~8C1fiM!(s _ 4HAt+1BPOB'CS'l'[ON pBfT ~QRfi31Na~ Aa31VQY AffidOiD acK~e~R C+~~ DEPAe~N~r o~ TsANSPOxTA~ort • to aaarm A~ ~ R•E C E! V E D P. O. BOR 23880 OAKt.~D, 0A 94623-0680 ~ ~ '1 '~ N~~uPcurl PHONE (610) Z88~6806 Bt ~~v ~+f- FAX (610) T.88-6889 T!'Y (800) T95-` E9 August 26, 2005 _. _ ..... .. _..... _ ~ ...,..~,,._ ..,...k.. ~...... . _.. NSr. Steve Carisan • City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue Sol~th San Francisco, CA 44483 , . • ~ Dear Mr. Carlsaa: . g•d Hame.DeQoi Eco~ec# - lYotic~,dPrepsrstloo 'Thank yiou.fb~r iacht~iing.the Califctnia DCt.of"!1 environmental ~reviea pinoea's ~ fatr talc abov~refei~oncaei Notice of Preparation for the Home DCpot Prgject diaft 1 gave the following oa~ments to csffm: ' . Our Qrlmary concern vrith the prajecl is the potentially traffic volume aad cou~gestion. We recommend a traffic i traffic impact analysis should include, but aoE be limited l . Infonaation 'oa the ptojec~s .traffic impa~cta in term and assignment. The assumirtia~s and n-ettyoda information should be acldnssed ~ ~. Y SM101415 SM-101-22.64. Si~Y 2005082032 ita~em``(Depnt) iri `the et: We bane reviewed Vie >~1m1 jmp~ct Repot and ~,;.. • -, gnis~a~t ~ ~t play ht,~e tp npact analysis be pa+efiazed. The y the following: of trip generation,. distribution, igiea used in compiling this 2. Avenge Daily TraflYC (Ai7T) and AM and PM peak Dour volumes oa alI ssgnif candy affected streets aid highways, includipg crossroad$ acid controlling intersections. 3. Srlier#~atic. i~Iustratio~ of ~e 7r~ffc caa~digons fDrs 1).~Cist3ria,.2). ,P~ P• .. 3) ~ cuiaulative, and 4) •diawlatsve"plus project -fdit t~ie''inte~sactions lord 'roadway i , ..sogm~nts, in ;the pip}ect arcs. ... ! . . z ,. . . a titi~raaa tgprs~u ~8tE4j1, ovas ., . BE99-6Z8-099 I A I Q 9N I NNH'ld d5s ~O Jll I O iik1Z0 ~ ~ SQOZ. LO daS Air. tan•c l',nrlaun fSUguS426, 2t3Qa tu~e2 ~. Calculation of cunZUlati~:e traf~ie volumes should consider all traffic-gaiieratiag developments, both existiug and fi[turo, that: would affect tl~e State highway facilities being evaluated. ~. Nlitigarian [neasures should consider highway and non-highway impru~reillents and services. Special attention should be given Co the development oE' alternate solutions to circulation prabiems that do not rely on increased highway construction. 6. r^[tl rn.itigation measures proposed should l)e fully dis~ussecl, including financing, scheduling, imple[nrnGatian responsibilities; and lead agency monitarit[g. ~Ne encourage the City of Soufill•San Francisco to coordinate prepar[tion of tljc study ~t•71.h our office, and vie would appreciate the opportunity to review the scope of work. Ploasc see the Department's "Guir~e fi7r Elie Prepararioi[ of 7'rdffic hripa.ct StcfdiPS" ut thu. Collu~viitg website for more uafc~nnatian: http:flw•w~v.dot.ca.~ovlhgltraFfp~s/develo>3servlope;rationals~ trmslruoortsltis~uide.ndf V4'e look fvrrvard to zeviewing the traffic impact analysis anti draft EnuironmAntal Impact Report sur this project. Please send two copies to: lllice Jackscln Office cif 'Szansit and Community Planiiizln .Department cf Transportation, District 4 P.O. Box 2:3Eifi4l Ualcland; CA 94623-(}660 Should you require furthez inf'orrr[adan ar have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at 161U;t 236-5)33. Si~leerel}r, 1 ~ . ~.--r TI:MiOTHY C. S.~BLE District Branch Chief IGRJCIuQA c: Scott Morgan {S[atc Cicacynghouse) "Caltmrts fneprauES rrwbffitp ucrusx Culf(urrun' ~•d scss-sze-oss IAIQ 9N[blNti7d dss ~o ~,.cFa wa~o=~. sooz c.o des )eparttment of Public Works RF~FI~~,p sEp ° ~ ~ 200 ''~uuru~ BOARD OF 3UPERVISdRS MARK CHURCH RICHARD 5. C30RDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBBON ADRIENNE 1lSSIER NEIL R. CULLEN . oiRecTOp COUNTY CAF SAN MATE4 565 GOUNTY CENTER, 5'" FLOOR • RSDWODD CITY • CALIFORNIA 84063-1685 • PHONE (660) 383-4100 • FAX (8S0) 361-8220 September 2, 2005 Mr. Steve Carlson Citq of South Ss~ Francisco Planning Division • . P.Q. Box 711'' South San Francisco, CA 94083 ~ COPY Dear Mr. Carlsan: Subject: Notice of Preparation, Home Depot Project, Environmental Impact Report, City of South San I~ancisco (APN U15-021.-110) We received your letter dated August S, 2005 on August 8, 2005, regarding the subject project. The letter was addressed to Walt Callahan with the Counfiy of San Mateo who has retired. Future correspondence of this nature whereby the City of South San Francisco is requesting comments from the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District) should be addressed to: Ann Stillman County of San Mateo 555 County Center, ~'~ Flaar Redwood City, CA 94063 The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator of the District, has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report (ETR) for the project and offers the following comments: ' • Our records show that the proposed praj ect site is located outside of the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone). Before we can comment on the EIIt, we request that you provide us~with additional information as to how the storm water in the project site is currently drrected.~ Is the storm water runoff from the site curzently being directed~toward Cohna Creek? • .. ~ , _ . ~ . . ~,.. Mr. Steve Carlson, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division Subject: Notice of Preparation, Home Depot Project, Environmen#aI Impact Report, City of South San F~aneisco {APN 015-021-110) September 2, 2005 ~ _ Page 2 ~ Since the Flame Depot proj ect site is located outside of the Zone boundaries and properties outside of the Zone boundaries do not contn~ute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance of the District's facilities, storm water runoff from this site must not be directed into the District's flood control channel. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chaw at (6S0) 599-1489, or myself at (6S0} 599-1417.. _ ' Very truly yours, Ann M. Stillman, P:E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:sdd F:1U8Bli8UDMIN1P~51Ut~7ity Serriers120tJ5190D Dubuque Homo Depot-Nodca ofPxp. Reviaw.dx Cl:\U9BRS1i177L.fCYlCohm G4eek FCDIWaRDlitevtaw External Fmject1200S1900 Dubuque Home Depot -Notice of Prcp. ltaviaw.doc F 149 {9~ ' cc: Mark Chow; P.B., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities Flood Control-Watershed Protection Ruh 30 2005 4:09PM CITY OF SSF PLRHPyI,liG UI,VI 650-829-E3639 ~a.2 • ' • . - • -cmrrcovrri~r~sso~~ioNO~ao~-,~rr~~' . ' . • • • - - • • •A~AB ta22 ~.r~.A~•~.eo~c~--•ao,sti.d•ss.a.ate.~awxao•.~Xaoucbw~•sf~/~~ul3,ai~.~M'aa~s -, :• ' Michael Lappen, Senior Planner ..- • , - •• .. . • ~ Cittr o.~Sputh Sari Frarycisi~ • • • . • ~ ••~l~G 2.3 :206~r ' .. , • " - Plerining division '• :. . • .' • ~ • • : . • • 'P.O. fox T, ii .. ' • ~ .t~LANNI~iG .. • . .. • South San Francsco, CA 94083 ~ • - • . • • RE: . CCA~ Airport Land tJse Commitoee•(ALUC}•Staff Commeryts•on a Notre of •. . •. • . Pr+eparatan ,(.hIOP) tio.Prr3pare a' Dtaft t-rtivironmentel Impact Report (DEIR) - • •. .. for a Proposed Hone Depot-Home•[mpr+overynerrt 1Alarahouse, Buiirling and • . • .: . " Relabsd Parkkyg $tr>iwcttine at 900 Dubuque Avenue • : : • . • Thank you 1br the oppoitui'yityta rr3view and cflmment on ttie .above-referenced document. • . . • . The foiiowing ara•ALUC oom 'related nt of'the ' •• 'The ~rbfrosed 1Q1;2 oars-loot me Depot i provein ousebuild'mg, •~ • an' adjoining 24,522' t n Center; ref parking efructure, • .that v~t~lt~ replace sUnp 15 T square futnitu buiidfryp a# 9Qq • . ' Dubuque Ave., aro bed th .AUport 'Area ( )boundary for San•' . Francisco Inbe rlal ' rt. , the p project d i~quiro fomael' . • 'review.by the A' Use • • tC! The noise • afi the DEIR ~ • should Hate. however, that alttwugh tti5 Proposed Project is not anoise-serysit;ve• land use: • . . ' ••the protect site maybe subject to.lioteri5ally.high single-everr~ noise IeNs>s and wertlipht • • . • • .from alr~aatt'departing on the" Shoreline Departure route from Ruryways 28 at nearby San " " Francisco ln#erriationatAirport. , ~ • '. - ' • •• . • • ' • • . • ••1t.you have any.questions.or need.mote information, plea~e•cont~c# meat65O1383-4417,• • Since •• - r • •DavW .'Cerf~ne, ALUC Staff • ,• ~ . - • .: ,. • • cc:. • •. ~CCA6• Airport Land Use Commi[bee (AL' lJC) members • .: • • - ' . ... Richard Napier, CCAG Exesutiv~i Dkecto!'• ~ . • 'k . • - Nbaon tarry, •SFO, Planning • : • ~ ~ . . ' ' . • ' .'Sandy Hesnard, Aviatfan F~ryvimnmarytal Planyiei, Calgans Division of Aamnautics • • .. alooooadel~eeneAynmopaoa •. • • efi+` J•.Go~~ . . ~ ~~~' . . .. .: • • . SSS Cany~nt C~y'lOt.. Sift.Intx~, CII~r, CA .94063 ~ 6SOVS49-•14Q6 ~ 6S~.S44.99BO Hug 30 2005 4:OBPMCITY QF SSF ~P'LFiH1Y2~iG. DIVx~' 650-8296639 ' • :.~: `r~OiWN OF ODLFAA ' : PLANNMG.pEPAKi7MEMf P.3 Auyust 22, 2005 Mr. Steve Carlson ~ ~ E ~ E 1 y'E ~ South.San ~soo Planning Divisbn Af/G RO. eaot 71i ~ . South Sin Frandsvo, CA 94083 Pr,A . iRE: Home Depot Proje~c#~ Emrironmentai Irnpad Report ' Dear Mr. Carlson: Thank you tor' the opportunity ~ :review and oar~nnent' on the Notice of Preparation. Sis'ber' Qties Boulevard, in oonjurxtion with other arber~l sfir+eets, provided an lnnportant -link fr+otn South'San ~rand~oo to. Highway 280: We are, requesting drat you- dowment 'the tralflc volumes and the . aurert acrd future Peak .Hour l~evels~ of Service at the fullowing two Intersectlans in the Enirironttier-te!Impcct Report: . ~ Hillside Boulevard, at L~awndale 8o~evard. ~ Lawndale 8oulerard at Mission Road . Thank ~u far your oansideration. • • ' • S.~ , City Planner ~ . , ' • ~ S. La~c'kr,~c1 V ~' . J 1190 H CarNnO Aeei . Cdrn~, C~Dmia 9~Qi4 fax:: (B3o~ 965.2590 ~ fiAX; ~~ ges-~e -. APPENDIX B TRAFFIC TABLES AND EQUATIONS PAGE B-1 Appendix B Table 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service A B C D E F Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) 10 > 10-20 > 20-35 > 35 - 55 > 55 - 80 > 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 B Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service A B C D E F Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) 0-10 > 10 - 15 > 15-25 > 25-35 > 35 - 50 > 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 B Table 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 621 S 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, April 2001. Appendix B Table 4 BRISBANE PROPOSED/POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION (2000-2020) AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR PLANNING SUBAREA SIZE LAND USE RATE TRH'S 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.Ow1/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. <<~ 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. Appendix B Table 5 MENU OF POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES AND C/CAG GUIDELINES TRIP CREDITS NUMBER OF TRIPS RECOMMENDED TOTAL TRIP TDM MEASURE CREDITED UANTITY 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 Insta113 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 to ers 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 _~ C~ .fir 'C a a + + ~3 o _ ~ ,-. 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ + ~ ~ o ,-~ ~° * o ~ ~ o ~ ~ (y U ~ M ~ 4~ l~ ,~ M ° + U ~--i Uri V] + M O ^' ~ V1 H ~ ~ i O~ * ~ p O ~ ~ O ~ ~'~ O ~ 00 O O W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" + ~ 9E '~ O ~ ~ dE c ~* o o ~ ~ p ~o H O p p ~ ~ O H O O N ~ ~ ~ O ~* 'b ~ ~ + + ,--~ N v~ W ~ ~ ,~ ~, ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ ~i I~ a~ '-' M S O N N ~ M ~ p M mod'' ,~ M O ~ O +r+ ~ ' O ° o0 ~ ,~ C N ~ N ~ N ~p >~ U O ~ + ~ ~ '~ o O 1 p ~ O~ N N O ~ 0 .~. II II ~ II II ~ II * II , II ~--~ ~ ~ Q N ~~ ~ N N ~ o N O i 0 d aN d a0 ap d ~ a i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p cad p ~ ~ cad M r ~ ~ + rri O ~ O ~ d' ~ (~ x x ~ ~ Q O ~ O O O O ~ a z ~ O ~ ~ n ~ ~ n ~ 0 ~ * ~ ,--. ,--. ,--. ,-., ~ a o~ 0 0 0 x o a x o a ~ o U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ O "~ 'd ~: 0 0 .~ ~n ~_ .b 'b ~". ~ •h ,.~ U ^' N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a~ II II ~ w -d a a .~ H U ~ ~ ~ O 0 ~." b O o U L: ~ y .b y 0 ~' U ~ a~ r-, ~ '~ U ~~ .~ o o ~ '~ •~ ~ ~ a"i v °' ~ o ~ c ~ •^ p ~ U ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C~ ce" o Y ~° ~ ~ U y,~ p~, ~ ~j O ^. G U~. ~ O ~ c~C ~ q ~ O v O bA ~ ~ U rn .~ iV ~i O ~ ~++ U ~ ~ ,s~ w ~ Q ~ a ~ a ~ ~.~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ .c .b -~ . °.: a°~i ~ -d ~ O ~ b N G ~ ~ bq :~ ~ U w ~ p ~ ~ y O ~ ~ ~ c>d O~ ~. ~ O cUd ~ ~ 'G Q O ~ O ~ ~ v ~~ ~~ ~~ o>~~ ~,u ~ ~o . ... 0 N N ti '~ Appendix B Table 7 700 600 500 x a a, E o, 400 c .N 0 a a O 300 200 100 2 L ANE RO 40 MPH AD LEFT TURN TREAT WARRANTED (40 MENT mph) 5% % LEFTTURNS 10% 15% LEF ° N T TURN TREAT OT WARRANTE MENT 40% D 20% iuu ~uu juu 400 500 600 700 Advancing Volume (VPH) WARRANT FOR PROVISION OF LEFT TURN LANES Intersection Channelization Guide Highway Research Program, Report #279. TRB, November 1985 APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY MODEL OUTPUT, EMISSIONS PROCEDURES, AND CALCULATIONS PAGE C-1 CO ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR TRAFFIC INCREASES Traffic : From traffic report. Only weekday PM traffic was used, since highest CO concentrations occur during the early morning or evening. Emission Factors Modeled using EMFAC2002 for San Mateo County Used worst-case speed 5 mph for all street intersection links, which results in high emission rates. Speeds of 25 mph were used for freeway (LTS Highway 101) operations. EMFAC2002 rates for 2005 used to model existing; rates for 2006 and 2020 for project conditions Reference CO Concentration at edge of roadway (worst case): 14.0 for Primary at grade 4-lane road 3.7 for Secondary at grade 4-lane Road 2.0 for depressed 8-lane freeway at 200 feet Background 8-hour CO concentration: 2.8 ppm for existing/near term and 2.5 ppm for future. Screening Method & Assumptions Use BAAQMD CO Hot Spots Manual calculation method to estimate roadside CO concentrations. The 1-hr average CO concentration is estimated using BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Table 12 values. The BAAQMD max. 1-hr CO values are based on worst-case met conditions and converted to an 8-hour average. The screening calculations that compute the max 1-hour CO concentration contribution from each roadway (in ppm) is based on the following equation: Ci = (Cri x Vi x Efi) / 100,000 Where, Cri = CO reference conc. in ppm Vi = hourly traffic volume EFi = CO emission factor in g/VMT This yields a 1-hour CO concentration based on worst-case meteorology that is then converted to a 8-hour concentration using a persistence factor of 0.7 (recommended by BAAQMD) and then added to the existing background 8-hour concentration (3.5 ppm). The resulting concentration is then compared to NAAQS and CAAQS. Calculations attached. Regional Emissions Calculations Regional emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 model (version 7.5) obtained from the California Air Resources Board website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/soft.htm URBEMIS 2002 is a computer program that can is used to estimate emissions associated with land development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, and office buildings. The model calculates emissions from traffic generation, area sources (such as gas appliances, wood stoves, fireplaces, and landscape maintenance equipment) and construction projects. The model includes land use types for different types of retail use. Inputs to the model are as follows: Project Type Size: Home improvement store Trip Rate: Adjusted for project traffic projections Project Year: 2006 Season: Summer Temperature: 85°F All other inputs were default inputs used for analysis conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Emissions were predicted for area sources and operational motor vehicle sources. Area Source Emissions The model predicts area source emissions from the different land uses. These include emissions from natural gas usage and landscape equipment. Traffic Emissions The model predicts vehicle trips and associated vehicle miles traveled based on the land use types. The trip generation from these land use types is adjusted for project-specific forecasts. URBEMIS2002 OUTPUT FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT Pty: 1 URR£M.I ;007 For Win.?.~w:= 'D.'.a7 F:,1, Earane: C:'4PragYa:et FitstiElRHbM,i,Pr ^.0+72 Sc PrUj^ 'Ct tL Lfi ' ~7.: W;t:riosv ~„it~ro~~et~7r~:.t.°.~aSk ..roec~vla:r,.t;zo - a L : 5. SAn EYaI101 Carp H61T~i~i Dup~1t P2 CS~eCt Lb!:at.1011: 5a;: Fi'3nCi<CJ Ray AYea On•~,Raad 33aitox ti'whicl.r F.:ni.rsipi~ Salad on EMFAS;'204°, v~;zasia~ 2.2 f>)tMMARY Rx.S~JRT IPrnuulsfD;ty - SEUrancxi AREA !7VRrfi EI9T~'STO}3 ESTIMATES ROf; id:);t t4 TC?TALS ilbs,ida,•,unmiti0ated7 a), 17 L22 ;,13~; 502 O.L?0 I'M1C~ 0.00 OPERATIONAL ~VEHICL$j £MIoSIDHI ESTIN.ATEa RDG NOx LO TOTALS i119sidav,unmitiyated ~.3 924 S 3~.0~2 A2 ti3 S42 PI:1~} . . , 4.90 3c.58 StJM C3F AREA ANG OPti t'iATI+3NAL £I91b'SIt?N £BTIMATF: F" RDG NOY s`O 7`fiTALS {1hs7day,urznritiyxreci~ 35.19 ,3.15 ~.'-.5.'74 S02 0,~0 PIR10 3.69 IJRBEMIS2002 Output, Page 1 Paya: 2 t'RRI?M4S ^002 Ecr Wa. n<ICxs~aa 7.5.4 Filz Nuns: C:1Pxur~ra7n Fi1vS143R8EMAS 240« Fex w:; nd^ v:s.i'x,~cke2F:2;F 'F 1 , . Project Alante: 3azt FYanci sc.: Ilon;e Brpot o; i,~;3~pox.uxk Pro)ect Location: Stn FYan~:.ttiCO Bay Atea On~-Road Mot+~x Vehicle £rai ssions Sased on EMFAO2t3O2 version '2.°2 DETAIL REPORT {Ytounds/I)ay - :i Wtane x} AREA 50URCE EMIS3IDPt E3'€'1HA`TE5 {gtunm+~r Fsounda p~:x Day, Unt?titigated? so,n,- R(H; Nox CO 802 tdatur~'. c,~n 0.09 1 '<2 0 99 F'HIO . . - Wood 5koves -- Na aurancx amiaaiotrs 7.C0 F1xeI51aCas NO 9UitffdceY an11981ai;1s LacidccaplrYg ~3.ttE ~>.Ol 0.58 4.x.7 _~ ^v 0?t Conu:umec Yraicts 4.00 . TC}TALShch;~/dtry,ti7un.itl~ttYet9J t1.77 .1.22 1.07 X5.00 0.0~? ITRBEMIS2002 Output, Page 2 Page: 3 11NMSTIGATLD 'i1PsPAT20HAL ENZ§5IL1N~ kt)(~ MDx ~'0 'C2 PM1.0 t8ome ampcovement super.~;to ~S.t?2 4P.5Fs 424.63 0.40 35.6° T~-N^ ;lhrldayl 3=.02 1'IAL EMI^~ TC 41,53 4'24.53 4.40 s6.60 i . DoeB Y,ot inclvd_ s^acceation fax pa~gby tc.£ps. lr<->~s nwz ixsa.rl(1~ uoublP ,: can ntfny acbjusCinet3 t. froc ir~r.rxnal r:ri.p*:. OPk:RA'n"It1NAL (VCfii~.wlc+S EMISSlCif7 ES'1'IMA'I'E;S Analysis Yea c: 2005 Tempatatuxe (F}: NS season: 0ttne!tex RN~TAC. tr±eslan: F.MFA~"2002 f9120ay"'t Eummaxy cf Land Uses: On a.r Tyf.e Tr.i f, Ra r: e:: :;x r,<* Tc,t,41 Ttip:i Hama impz,-,,vement ~upezsto 37,28 trips f I000 sry. tt. 125.:9 4,685.E:0 Ve hic la Assvmpt i~>ns: Fl. e:e:t Mzx: 1rhi~_le Ty13e Fezcant Type Nun-+~atalyst Catalys'< ' L. gfrt Rllt4 55.66 2.z0 7,34 5 Liaht Truck < 3,"750 lbs 15.19 4.00 53.40 L: gt._ Truck ?. ?51- 5,750 15.'90 1-90 A6-921 M+°d Trvek 5,751- 8,$04 7.130 1.AO 95.40 1,ite-Neavy $.501-1Q, OOib 1.10 0.00 $1.80 Lise°Heavy 10,001-1A, OOtI 0.30 0.00 66•!0 Merl-Heavy 14,0¢1-3?, 000 1.00 10.04 20.04 fiaary-Heavy 33,001.6V,000 0.90 0.01 11.10 Lane Havl > 60.494 lh,. 0.99 (3.00 0.00 Uzl?an 8uw 0.10 0.00 4.00 ' Matoxcycle 1.70 $2.40 7.50 1 8~ho~a1 Eus 0.10 0.94 x.04 Mr, t:or xrnne 1.?0 9.139 41.'0 TtavCl f, ~.~n~i t+.~ns Rezidenxzal Home•~ flr,~ae- 3fotme~~ Wi1xk whop 4zliEx tJrhah Trip ;.~-::3Ch {¢,:le~} 11.8 4.& E.1 Su cab Trip Long ti, 1m31e~1 15.0 30.0 10.4 Tcifa Sp~e:tf: ~:~. t~:, ~i0.0 30.0 30.0 4 of Tzips - ke~idvntia2 ?7.3 21.E 51.$ $ o[ ?zips - Ctireoetcial iby land uael Harae ampcavemcnY ~ap~rstace URBEMIS2002 Output, Page 3 Page: 9 Cca::ir<c: xcial Diesrl t; . sa 2.60 1.?0 ?,. 90 18.20 33.30 70.94 813.91 104.90 100.00 ,CO 1x0.04 .3.30 Craxuute Non°Nc3xk Custcm9x 1A.8 S.9 5.4 15.0 39.0 14-0 39.0 30.0 39.0 2,4 l.p 97.0 ~:han~7ec made to thr: deGavlt valut:s ter La:ad Usc Txip Percentages t;han0es made to the d~favlt valttc5 #ot Area Changes made to the datavlt values fox topexatiors Thy pans 77y tripY rptian switch ~hart4ecl Exam c,n t~ rff. The oper:4tit^naf. emi.a>z>n yt:ar c*.anged f.irnn ^444 is 29[~er. The ttav+rl moue envitntvnant saitinc7s changed tram both tu: ron-zes~dantial URBEMIS2002 Output, Page 4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT FEIR CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS PM Peak Hour Assumes worst case of all intersections based on total volume, LOS and project traffic contributir Traffic Volume 2006 Base 2006 Base+ 2020 Base+ Intersection Exist Case Project Project Link: Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave Oyster Point Blvd.* 3035 3760 3769 5678 Dubuque Ave 2300 2320 2538 3583 Freeway - NB US101 @200ft in Cut* 7735 8060 8060 10000 Freeway- SB US101 @200ft in Cut* 6280 6945 6945 10000 * Indicates primary roadway (due to higher volume) Emission Factors (EMFAC2002 -San Mateo Cty) LOS E or F (Smph) 2005/06 = 11.343 g/mi LOS E or F (Smph) 2020 = 2.840 g/mi LOS E or F (25mph -freeway) 2005/06 = 6.088 g/mi LOS E or F (25mph -freeway) 2025 = 1.677 g/mi Background CO Levels - 1-Hour 8-Hour RedwoodCity/San Francisco 3yrs 5 2.8 1-Hour CO Contribution 2006 Base+ 2020 Base+ Exist 2006 Base Case Project Project 4.1 5.1 5.1 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.4 0.9 L0 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 Dispersion Factors Pn~marv Edge 2 Ln 14.0 4 Ln 11.9 8 LN (depr) - 200ft 2.0 8 LN (depr) - SOOft 0.7 Secondary 2 Ln 3.7 4 Ln 3.3 6 Ln 2,g CO Screening Calculation Worksheet