Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEast of 101 Area Plan V. Area Plan 08-1993EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN V. Area Plan Originally published August 1993. East of 101 Area Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS ^ ^ 1. Introduction 1 2. Plan Concept and Goals 5 3. Summary of Plan Policies 11 4. Land Use Element 27 S. Circulation Element 43 6. Public Facilities Element 67 7. Recreation Element 79 8. Design Element 85 9. Noise Element 87 10. Geotechnical Safety Element 91 11. Natural Resources Element 99 12. Financing Element 105 13. Implementation Element 113 Appendix -Housing Element Revisions 121 V-i EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS AUGUST 1993 Figures 1. Land Use Concept 6 2. Land Use Plan 29 3. Roadway Circulation System Improvements 46 4. Circulation Plan Intersection Lane Geometrics 47 S. Bicycle Circulation Plan 52 6. Recreation Improvements 80 7. Entry and Streetscape Improvements To be added at a future date 8. Proposed Roadway Sections To be added at a future date 9. Proposed Roadway Sections To be added at a future date 10. Fill Areas Requiring Geotechnical Investiga tion 92 11. Known Sensitive Biological Resources 100 Tables 1. Area Plan Development Potential 31 2. Oyster Point Boulevard Widening Estimated Costs 56 3. Littlefield Avenue Widening Estimated Costs 57 4. Gateway Boulevard Right-Turn Lane Estimated Costs 58 5. Highway 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Bayshore Boulevard Estimated Costs Sg 6. Intersection Levels of Service with Circulation Plan Improvements 63 7. U.S. 101 Peak Hour Traffic Operations 65 8. Increased Water Demand of the Area Plan 68 9. Construction Costs of New Water Main 69 10. Increased Sanitary Sewer Flow of the Area Plan 71 11. Costs Associated with Sewer Facility Improvements 74 12. Public Costs of Recreation Improvements g2 13. Noise Attenuation Requirements for Hotel Uses 89 14. Noise Attenuation Requirements for Office and Retail Uses 89 15. Costs of Area Plan Improvements 107 16. Implementation of Area Plan Improvements 117 V-ii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A. Background and Purpose The East of 101 Area represents an important economic resource to the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. The area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land in the City of South San Francisco east of Highway 101, from the City's northern border with Brisbane to the southern border adjacent to San Francisco International Airport. The area currently accounts for approximately 19,400 jobs, or almost one-half of the City's total employment base. Although the East of 101 Area is largely developed with light industrial, research and development, warehousing, retail, office, and hotel land uses, it also includes some significant undeveloped parcels. Key vacant sites include the Koll property, the Shearwater site, the Haskins site, portions of the Gateway site, and portions of the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan area. This Area Plan defines General Plan level land use policies for these vacant parcels, in addition to general land use policies for the remaining East of 101 Area. The overall goal of the East of 101 Area Plan is to recognize the unique character of the East of 101 Area and to guide and regulate development in a manner which protects and enhances the area's physical, economic and natural resources, while also encouraging appropriate development in the area. B. Area Plan Contents The East of 101 Area Plan is a policy document that will guide land use, circulation, noise control, geotechnical safety, public facilities provision, design, recreation and natural resource enhancement, and financing in the East of 101 area. The Area Plan includes the following chapters: • Chapter 1 is this introduction. • Chapter 2 includes of the Plan concept and goals. V-1 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN INTRODUCTION AUGUST 1993 • Chapter 3 lists the Plan's development policies. • Chapter 4 is the Land Use Element, which includes land use policies, categories, and development standards for the East of 101 Area. • Chapter 5 is the Circulation Element which includes both circulation policies and parking policies. • Chapter 6 is the Public Facilities Element, which contains policies and plans for infrastructure improvements in the area. • Chapter 7 is the Recreation Element, which outlines plans for increased recreation facilities in the East of 101 Area. • Chapter 8 contains the Design Guidelines for the planning area, including design policies for commercial, industrial, and streetscape design. • Chapter 9 is the Noise Element. • Chapter 10 is the Geotechnical Safety Element. • Chapter 11 is the Natural Resources Element, which includes policies for the preservation of wetlands and sensitive species in the East of 101 Area. • Chapter 12 is the Financing Element, which sets forth measures for financing capital improvement costs. • Chapter 13 is the Implementation Element which describes changes to City plans and policies, as well as additional programs, that will be required for Plan implementation. An appendix includes revisions to the City's General Plan Housing Element necessary to make the Element consistent with this Area Plan. Background information regarding existing conditions and real estate market conditions in the East of 101 Area are included in Sections II and III of the Plan binder, and are hereby incorporated into this Area Plan by reference. C. Relationship to the South San Frnncisco Genernl Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning This Area Plan will be adopted as the City of South San Francisco General Plan for the Area, and as the primary development policies for the East of 101 Area. The Area Plan supersedes existing South San Francisco General Plan policy for the area, except that the City's General Plan Housing Element will V-2 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN INTRODUCTION continue to apply in the East of 101 Area. Adoption of the Area Plan will represent an amendment to the City's General Plan. This Area Plan bears different relationships to each of the three Specific Plans currently in place in the East of 101 Area: The Gateway Specific Plan is not affected by the Area Plan, and will continue in force in the Gateway Area. A special land use category under the Area Plan allows this to occur. The Area Plan augments the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan. The policies of this Area Plan and the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan will both be effective in the Oyster Point Marina area. No conflicts between these two documents are known to exist, but if any are found, then the Specific Plan will prevail. • The Shearwater Specific Plan is superseded by this Area Plan, and will no longer be in effect. The Area Plan will require changes to the zoning code and map to include new categories in the Plan area. However, the majority of the City's zoning code will not be changed and will continue to apply to the area where categories are already established. D. Planning Process A study committee consisting of members of the City of South San Francisco's Planning Commission and City Council has overseen the planning process for the East of 101 Area, which began in January 1993. An initial public meeting regarding the planning process was held on March 15, 1993, at which the public was invited to share concerns and ideas regarding the Plan. Numerous private interviews with land owners and businesses in the East of 101 Area were also held in February and March of 1993. As the first steps in the planning process, the existing conditions of the East of 101 Area were documented in the Existing Conditions Report and the Market Conditions Report, which accompany this Plan in the binder. Opportunities and constraints to development identified in these reports were presented to the public at a meeting on June 14, 1993. Once the existing conditions were documented, the consultant team developed a series of alternative land use scenarios for the area. A preferred alternative was selected based on the identified development constraints. The alternatives V-3 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN INTRODUCTION AUGUST 1993 are included in the Plan binder, and were presented to the public at the June 14, 1993 meeting. Based on the preferred alternative, development policies, standards, and guidelines were created, together with a Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Draft Plan. These were submitted in July 1993, for review in Summer and Fall 1993. E. Interpretation of Plan Policies Policies of this Plan are contained in Chapters 4 through 13, and are summarized in Chapter 3. Actual policies are shown in bold type. Text in regular type gives background regarding the policies, but is not binding. Each Plan policy contains the word "shall" or "should", which indicates whether the policy is mandatory or advisory: Policies that contain the word "shall" must be followed by the City and by all land owners and developers in the East of 101 Area. Policies that contain the word "should" are advisory. Land owners and developers are strongly encouraged to follow these policies, but they may deviate from these policies if extenuating circumstances prohibit following them and such circumstances are presented to and accepted by the City. V-4 Chapter 2 PLAN CONCEPT AND GOALS This chapter contains the planning criteria and goals for the East of 101 Area and provides a framework for the specific land use, design, and other policies presented in this Area Plan. A. Land Use Concept Figure 1 illustrates the Land Use Concept underlying the East of 101 Area Plan. As shown in the diagram, the outer perimeter of the area abuts San Francisco Bay and serves as visual and recreation opportunities and should be enhanced and preserved by development within the East of 101 Area. In addition, San Bruno Point Hill serves as a visually prominent topographical feature, and will be a focal point for the northern part of the area. The development of the East of 101 Area as described by the Land Use Concept is essentially commercial and industrial in nature. Development policies in the northern portion of the area encourage the creation of campus- like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other high quality multi-tenant office or warehouse developments. Each planned development within the northern portion of the East of 101 Area will be encouraged to create an attractive and independently workable development, while relating with and respecting surrounding development. The southern portion of the East of 101 Area allows for development which requires good accessibility and less stringent development standards than required in the northern portion of the area. Emphasis will be placed on continuing the light industrial and transportation oriented uses that already occur in this area. V-5 us EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 1 Land Use Concept AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PLAN CONCEPT AND GOALS Retail, office and hotel uses will be encouraged along the perimeter of the East of 101 Area, to serve visiting shoppers, business people, and recreational users. The majority of the commercial land uses are located in the western portions of the area, providing a transition between the industrial uses of the east and the remaining portions of the City west of Highway 101, and taking advantage of access from Highway 101 and South Airport Boulevard. San Francisco International Airport (SETA) is a major influence on land use in the East of 101 Area. The far southern portion of the area is under the jurisdiction of SFIA, and is designated for airport-related uses under this Area Plan. The presence of the Airport was a major factor in determining the incompatibility of residential uses within the East of 101 Area. B. Overall Approach The Plan's overall approach to development in the East of 101 Area consists of the following five main components: • The Plan provides for development of land uses which are viable in the East of 101 area based on market conditions and projected service requirements for the area. • The Plan avoids impacts of development to the natural assets of the planning area by encouraging development which is sensitive to the natural resources of the area. • The Plan minimizes impacts related to circulation, public facilities and municipal services by providing an outline of needed facilities and services and identifying appropriate financing methods for them. In addition, limits on overall levels of development ensure that service capacity will not be outstripped. • The Plan encourages quality design and development through the Design Policies and Guidelines. • The Plan is intended to be easily implemented by the City of South San Francisco. This chapter, along with Chapter 3, summarizes all goals and policies of the Area Plan, and may be used as a quick reference guide to the Plan. V-7 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PLAN CONCEPT AND GOALS AUGUST 1993 C. Plan Goals 1. Land Use 1.1 Promote planned industrial, office, and commercial uses in the East of 101 Area, and discourage other uses that would be inconsistent with these uses. 1.2 Encourage development that enhances net revenues to the City. 1.3 Promote development that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco. 1.4 Encourage development that respects and is in character with the Bay environment. 1.5 Provide for the development of more retail services to serve the employees of the East of 101 Area. 1.6 Encourage the use of downtown South San Francisco as a commercial center for those employed in the East of 101 Area. 1.7 Provide child care facilities in the East of 101 Area. 1.8 Encourage the appropriate development of additional hotel facilities in the East of 101 Area. 1.9 Preserve historically significant sites and buildings. 2. Circulation 2.1 Minimize vehicular circulation impacts. 2.2 Limit development to the extent that it cannot be adequately served by roadways and transit. 2.3 Provide for adequate amounts of parking in the East of 101 Area. 2.4 Encourage transportation modes other than single-occupancy automobiles including ridesharing, bicycling, walking and transit. V-8 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PLAN CONCEPT AND GOALS 3. Public Facilities 3.1 Provide adequate sanitary sewer system capacity, water supply and other utilities to serve proposed development in the East of 101 Area. 3.2 Ensure that new development has appropriate drainage in order to minimize environmental and flooding problems. 3.3 Regulate growth in the East of 101 Area in accordance with the ability of the Police Department, Fire Department, and other public agencies to provide adequate services. 3.4 Promote water and energy conservation in all new development. 4. Recreation 4.1 Encourage uses which take advantage of the San Francisco Bay shoreline and the views associated with the Bay. 4.2 Implementation of the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan in cooperation with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to secure a continued public access trail along the San Francisco Bay Frontage. 4.3 Preserve and enhance the natural amenities and features of the East of 101 Area including the views of the San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, and San Bruno Point Hill. 5. Design 5.1 Promote high quality site, architectural and landscape design that increases a sense of identity in the East of 101 Area. 5.2 Improve the streetscape quality of the East of 101 Area through plantings of street trees and provision of entry monuments. 5.3 Protect visually significant features of the East of 101 Area, including views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain. 5.4 Minimize the intrusion of unsightly elements such as unattractive signage, overhead utility lines, chain link fences, barbed wire, and loading and service areas in the East of 101 Area. V-9 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 PLAN CONCEPT AND GOALS 5.5 Promote public access to views of the San Francisco Bay and to the Bay Trail. 6. Noise 6.1 Encourage the development of land uses which will be compatible with the noise environment of the East of 101 Area. 6.2 Provide guidelines for noise attenuation for hotel and office uses in the East of 101 Area. 7. Geotechnical Safety 7.1 Minimize impacts associated will fill soils, landfills, and slopes. 7.2 Protect against hazards associated with earthquakes. 8. Natural Resources 8.1 Provide for the protection of sensitive wildlife and plant species, and their habitats within the East of 101 Area. 8.2 Minimize indirect impacts to biological resources within the East of 101 Area. 9. Financing 9.1 Distribute costs of needed improvements fairly among the parcels that will benefit from them. 10. Implementation 10.1 Ensure that public improvements will be built as the need for them arises in the East of 101 Area. V-10 Chapter 3 SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES This section contains development policies for the East of 101 Area to which any development proposed in the area must conform. The policies are arranged according to the elements of the Plan in Chapters 4 through 13, and are taken directly from those chapters. Further discussion and explanation of the Area Plan Policies is contained in the individual elements of the Plan. Each Plan policy contains the word "shall" or "should", which indicates whether the policy is mandatory or advisory. Policies that contain the word "shall" must be followed by the City and by all land owners and developers in the study area. Policies that contain the word "should" are advisory. Land owners and developers are strongly encouraged to follow these policies, but they may deviate from these policies if extenuating circumstances prohibit following them and such circumstances are presented to and accepted by the City. A. Land Use Element Policies LU-1. Developments planned for the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated based on their merits and the net benefits they will provide to the East of 101 Area and the City of South San Francisco. LU-2. New East of 101 Area developments should generally meet the following criteria: New land uses should enhance property values, thereby increasing property tax revenues in the East of 101 Area. At a minimum, improvements should have a value four times that of the land they are built on. New development should not have a net negative fiscal impact on the City, and should pay for all on- going City services it requires through taxes and fees. V-11 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES AUGUST 1993 • New land uses should be compatible with surrounding development and should not be detrimental to the overall economic viability of the East of 101 Area. • New developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101 Area. • The trip generation of new land uses should be within the projections of the Area Plan. • The demand for sewage treatment for each individual development should remain within the projections of the Area Plan. LU-3. All development in the East of 101 Area shall be consistent with the provisions of the land use categories illustrated in Figure 2 and described in Policies LU-4 through LU-10. 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, and personal and repair services. LU-4b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Planned Commercial category is 0.60. Additional floor area may be permitted for hotel uses with Planning Commission approval, up to a miaximum of 1.6 for full-service hotels. LU-Sa. Uses allowed in the Planned Industrial category shall typically include non-nuisance light manufacturing, incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, offices, administrative activities, research and development facilities, "big-box' retail and warehouse sales, distributing facilities utilizing light delivery trucks, offices, and service businesses that serve the needs generated by the uses described above. LU-Sb. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Planned Industrial category is 0.45. LU-6a. Uses allowed in the Light Industrial category shall typically include light manufacturing and assembly plants, management and special trade contractor's offices and related services, warehouses, trucking and distribution centers, auto repair and auto painting establishments and auto, truck, and equipment sales, offices, and V-12 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES all uses which are described in the Planned Industrial land use category are allowed in the Light Industrial district. LU-6b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Light Industrial category is 0.50. LU-7a. Uses allowed in the Coastal Commercial category shall typically include business and professional services, administrative and business offices, convenience sales, restaurants, personal services, repair services, retail sales, hotel and motel uses with a coastal orientation, recreational facilities, and marinas. LU-7b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Coastal Commercial category is 0.60. LU-8a. Uses allowed in the Gateway Specific Plan Area shall include retail, commercial, and research and development uses, as specified in the Gateway Specific Plan. LU-8b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Gateway Specific Plan Area shall be that specified in the Gateway Specific Plan. LU-9. Uses allowed in the Airport-Related category shall include uses consistent with the San Francisco International Airport, such as freight transportation and customs brokerage firms, as well as expansions of the San Francisco International Airport itself. LU-10. Uses allowed in the Open Space category shall include parks, vista points, pedestrian and bicycle trail corridors, fishing facilities, playing fields, recreational buildings, interpretive centers, and undeveloped open space. LU-11. No residential development shall occur in the East of 101 Area. LU-12. The City shall track development for its impacts on roadway and sewage treatment capacity. Before the available capacities are used, the City will re-evaluate East of 101 Area land use categories, and may limit the future development of the area. To implement this policy, the City will institute a system of tracking for roadway levels of service and sewage capacity, with reports to the City Council at least once every two years. LU-13. Maximum allowed Floor Area Ratios for the land use categories in Policies LU-4 through LU-7 shall apply only to new construction. Where existing buildings on a site exceed the allowed FAR, they may be replaced or remodeled with buildings up to the existing FAR on the site, provided that all new construction meets all other policies of this Plan and all other codes and regulations in effect at the time of construction. V-13 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES AUGUST 1993 LU-14. The City shall encourage development of campus settings and planned growth for multiple parcel developments and shall promote the development of facility "Master Plans" and design standards that meet and exceed the Area Plan's objectives. Master Plans shall include specific commitments to high quality designs that meet the City's goals for a site. LU-15. The maximum allowed FIoor Area Ratios for the land use categories in Policies LU-4 through LU-7 may be exceeded through development of a "Master Plan" after Planning Commission review to ensure that sufficient roadway and infrastructure capacity can be provided. LU-16. Noxious industrial uses that emit loud noises, odors, large quantities of pollutants, or hazardous materials or are visually unattractive, such as meat processing plants, above-ground flammable liquid storage, and other similar intensive industrial uses, shall generally not be allowed in the East of 101 Area. Such uses may be allowed only in the Light Industrial and Airport- Related categories, but only after Planning Commission review to ensure that they would be compatible with surrounding uses and would not create unacceptable nuisances or hazards. LU-17. Legally established auto salvage yards located in the East of 101 Area shall be permitted to remain but should not be allowed to expand in the area. All storage and loading activities shall be screened and landscaping provided adjacent to public rights-of- way. All other auto salvage yards shall be prohibited. LU-18. Auto, truck, and equipment sales and rental lots shall not be permitted in the Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, or Coastal Commercial categories. LU-19. Auto, truck and equipment sales and rental lots and vehicle rental agencies should not be permitted in the East of 101 Area unless such uses are located under major utility lines. LU-20. Drive-thru restaurants may be built as components of commercial centers in the East of 101 Area, but should not be built as stand- alone uses on single parcels. LU-21. Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use Commission based on FAR Part 77 Criteria. LU-22. Retail and personal services shall be encouraged throughout the area to serve the employees of the East of 101 Area. In the V-14 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES Light Industrial and Planned Industrial categories, dedicated retail space may be included in a development without being applied to the allowed FAR, provided that such development includes adequate parking and does not exceed 10 percent of the building square footage of a project. LU-23. In addition to encouraging retail services within the East of 101 Area, patrons will be encouraged to use the downtown. The City shall encourage programs that educate employees of the area and promote the use of the downtown as a commercial center. LU-24. Child care facilities shall be encouraged as part of any office or industrial park development over 50,000 square feet. Child care facilities may be built as part of a commercial or industrial development and shall not be counted as part of the Floor Area Ratio of the project. LU-25. Intensive, transit-oriented development shall be encouraged within one-quarter mile of the CalTrain station. If the City Planning Commission finds that a project contains transit-oriented design features (as described in the Design Element), then the allowed FAR may be increased by up to 20 percent. LU-26. The City shall protect buildings, sites, and land uses which are historically significant. LU-27. Re-use of obsolete rail spur rights-of--way in the East of 101 Area to meet the goals of this Plan shall be encouraged. B. Circulation Element Policies CIR-1. Level of Service D shall be the minimum acceptable operating standard for intersections in the East of 101 Area. CIR-2. The City shall ensure that intersection levels of service do not drop below Level D by tracking existing levels of service, engaging in a program of necessary City traffic improvements, and requiring developments that would impact levels of service to provide for necessary traffic mitigation. CIR-3. The City shall develop a program of roadway improvements that includes construction or financing of the roadway improvements to meet the requirements of development projected in the East of 101 Area. V-15 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES AUGUST 1993 CIR-4. Roadway improvements to serve East of 101 traffic that are needed in areas outside the City of South San Francisco jurisdiction shall be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and jurisdictions. CIR-5. Roadway access to the Koll site shall be provided via a bridge across a portion of the Bay between the site and the Shearwater Site, or via flyover ramps from the site to Bayshore Boulevard. If abridge is built, it shall not allow access from Brisbane into the East of 101 Area. Improvements shall be completed by the project sponsor at the time of development of the Koll site. CIR-6. All new developments shall contain facilities to support transit, provided by both public and private means. CIR-7. The City of South San Francisco and the employers of the area shall work with the Multi-City TSM Agency to increase shuttle bus service and usage. CIR-8. The City shall study the possible relocation of the CalTrain Station from its existing site to a location which serves both the employees of the East of 101 Area and the employees and residents of the rest of the City. CIR-9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the roadway frontages of all new developments and pedestrian signals and crosswalks shall be considered for all newly signalized intersections. CIR-10. The City shall develop a program of bicycle circulation improvements. CIR-11. The City shall include bicycle detection loops in all new traffic signals, and shall install detection loops at existing signalized intersections if feasible. CIR-12. All new developments of 10,000 square feet or more shall include showers, locker rooms, and secure bicycle parking areas/facilities (lockers) to support the use of bicycles. CIR-13. Bicycle lanes and/or paths should be incorporated into roadway widening and new construction projects where feasible. CIR-14. The City of South San Francisco shall support transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) programs in coordination with the Multi-City Transportation System Management Agency. CIR-15. The City's parking requirements shall be reduced to account for decreased vehicle use as required by trip reduction programs. V-16 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES CIR-16. For master planned developments, (as described in Policy LU-14), the City may allow flexible parking requirements based on the characteristics of the development. CIR-17. The City shall develop a strategy to mitigate on-street parking problems in the East of 101 Area. CIR-18. Loading areas shall be located so that truck loading and maneuvering does not disrupt traffic flow within a project site or along a public street. C. Public Facilities Element Policies PF-1. The City shall ensure provision of an adequate water supply to meet the needs of development in the East of 101 Area in a timely manner. PF-2. Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be installed as part of all new developments in the area. PF-3. The City shall develop a program of sewage collection system improvements to reconstruct subsiding sewer lines, provide adequate pump station capacity, and make other necessary sewage collection system improvements in the East of 101 Area. Improvements shall be completed in a timely manner to meet demands created by new development. PF-4. The City shall work with the City of San Bruno to ensure that the Wastewater Treatment Plant adequately provides for development in the East of 101 Area, and the rest of the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. Necessary upgrades shall continue to be parts of the Capital Improvements Program as they are required. PF-5. The City of South San Francisco shall complete the test and analysis planned for summer 1993 and fiscal year 1993-1994 to determine the Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity. PF-6. In order that the treatment plant does not become a limiting factor to development in the East of 101 Area or elsewhere within the City, a plant expansion plan, including a schedule and funding program, shall be adopted by the City. Plant capacity expansion shall be completed prior to development that would require expanded treatment capacity. V-17 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES AUGUST 1993 PF-7. Projects in the East of 101 Area that would generate large quantities of wastewater shall be required to lower their wastewater treatment needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, gray water irrigation and similar programs where feasible. PF-8. Specific development proposals in the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated individually to determine drainage requirements. Of special concern are the Shearwater site and properties west of Colma Creek. PF-9. All development in the East of 101 Area shall comply with the NPDES discharge program. Developments over 5 acres in size shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the NPDES, which may require inclusion of permanent on-site treatment of stormwater from parking areas. PF-10. The Ciry shall require all new developments to have appropriate water quality control devises. PF-11. During the rainy season, developers shall be required to place appropriate erosion control devices, such as silt fences, hay bales, etc. during construction activities to minimize the amount of silt directly entering the Bay or other wetlands. PF-12. Utility companies shall be provided early notification for any proposed project that could have an unusual requirement for gas, electric, or telephone services. D. Recreation Element Policies RE-1. Marina and shoreline oriented uses shall be encouraged along the bay front. RE-2. Land owners undertaking development projects on properties with shoreline frontage shall be required to enter into development agreements, record deed restrictions, and/or dedicate development rights to fulfill the City's and BCDC's requirements for shoreline and open space development. RE-3. San Francisco Bay Trail improvements shall be required of new developments and maintained in an appropriate manner by the land owner. RE-4. Commercial developers in the East of 101 Area shall be required to either pay park in-lieu fees or dedicate park land based on a V-18 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES formula developed by the City which estimates the demand for park and recreational facilities generated by the expected employment of projects. RE-5. The City shall work to provide recreational improvements in the East of 101 Area to meet the needs of Area employees and visitors, and to provide improved access to San Francisco Bay for residents of the City and the region. Improvements may be made by private developers or with funds collected by the City. E. Design Element Policies To be inserted with completion of the Design Element in late August 1993. F. Noise Element Policies NO-1. Hotels in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so that the calculated single-event noise level due to an aircraft flyover does not exceed 55 dBA in hotel rooms, and the CNEL does not exceed 45 dBA. 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 Ley of 45 dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA. NO-3. Noise sensitive portions of industrial buildings shall meet the noise requirements for offices in Policy NO-3. G. Geotechnical Safety Element Policies GEO-1. Geotechnical investigations shall be required on a project-by- project basis on sites in areas of fill shown on Figure 10. GEO-2. Where fill remains under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. GEO-3. Given the extensive use of the area for industrial and waste disposal purposes, investigation both by drilling and by examination of historic aerial photographs shall be conducted by project developers in all fill areas to determine if landfills exist under the site prior to construction. V-19 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES AUGUST 1993 GEO-4. Project developers shall design developments on landfills and dump sites to deal safely with gas produced by the decomposition of the buried garbage. Inorganic soil capping over landfills shall be thick enough that excavation for repair of existing utilities or installation of additional utilities does not penetrate to buried garbage. GEO-5. If hazardous fill, such as garbage organics, is encountered, it shall be appropriately disposed by a project developer during construction. This material shall not be used for either structural fill or grading fill. However, other uses may be possible, such as landscaping around vegetation if the fill has a high organic content. If no acceptable use is found on-site, the hazardous fill should be properly disposed off-site. GEO-6. Where a landfill or dump occurs under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. GEO-7. 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 should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if extending a level area at the toe of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration shall be checked for an adequate factor of safety by a geotechnical engineer. GEO-8. The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a vegetative cover on the slope or by other means. Runoff from paved and other level areas at the top of the slope shall be directed away from the slope. GEO-9. Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and grading should be kept to a minimum. GEO-10. In fill areas mapped on Figure 10, a geotechnical investigation to determine the true nature of the subsurface materials and the possible effects of liquefaction shall be conducted by the project developer before development. V-20 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES GEO-11. Development shall be required to mitigate the risk associated with liquefaction. GEO-12. Structural design of buildings and infrastructure shall be conducted according to the Uniform Building Code and appropriate local codes of practice which specify procedures and details to reduce the effects of ground shaking on structures. GEO-13. Potential faults in the East of 101 Area, including the Coyote Point fault, should be mapped by the City, and appropriate study zones shall be determined based on the mapping results. GEO-14. Within the mapped study zone that results from investigations mandated in Policy GEO-13, fault trenching shall be required on individual development sites where feasible. No habitable construction shall occur within SO feet of identified faults. H. Natural Resource Element Policies NR-1. Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive resource lands, the City shall require an applicant to conduct a formal wetlands delineation at the project site. The results of the wetlands delineation shall be made available to evaluate project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats. NR-2. The City shall require that developments provide for no net loss of wetland acreages and values. NR-3. Slopes with native vegetation in the East of 101 Area shall be preserved. NR-4. The City shall ensure the preservation of any sensitive plant and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area. NR-5. Prior to approving construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101 Area, project sponsors shall conduct focused surveys to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species. NR-6. If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a proposed project, the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate mitigation measures. NR-7. New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design: V-21 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES AUGUST 1993 • Shield lights to reduce off-site glare. • Provide buffer areas of at least 100 feet between known sensitive resources and development area. • Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas from adjacent land uses. • Restrict entry to habitat areas through devices such as fencing, landscaping, or signage. I. Financing Element Policies FIN-1. Costs of new infrastructure and public amenities shall be borne by both existing and future development. FIN-2. Costs of new infrastructure and public amenities shall be distributed fairly among property owners based on the benefits received from the improvements. FIN-3. Any mechanism used to finance new East of 101 Area improvements shall avoid placing unreasonable cost burdens on individual property owners. FIN-4. Ongoing operating and maintenance costs for new East of 101 Area improvements shall be financed through ongoing revenues collected as fees, assessments, and taxes generated by future development in the Area. FIN-5. All development fees and assessments shall be structured so that they distribute costs equitably among various land uses, and do not serve as a disincentive to uses desired by the City. FIN-6. The City shall develop specific financing programs for the improvements listed as more detail on these improvements becomes available but before the need for these improvements arises. J. Implementation Element Policies IM-1. Adoption of the East of 101 Area Plan represents a General Plan Amendment. The City of South San Francisco shall utilize the East of 101 Area Plan as the General Plan for the East of 101 Area, superseding all elements of the City General Plan except V-22 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES the Housing Element. The City's Housing Element will continue to be effective in the East of 101 Area. IM-2. Amendments to this Area Plan shall be made only by following legally acceptable City procedures for General Plan Amendments. IM-3. The Shearwater Specific Plan shall be superseded by the East of 101 Area Plan and is no longer in effect as a land use plan or zoning designation. IM-4. This Area Plan augments the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan. The policies of this Area Plan and the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan will both be effective in the Oyster Point Marina area. No conflicts between these two documents are known to exist, but if any are found, the Specific Plan will govern. IM-5. The Gateway Specific Plan is not affected by this Area Plan. IM-6. New Specific Plans may be adopted for key sites within the Plan area as a means of implementing Plan goals, policies and land use categories. Specific Plans are required to contain all components specified in State law, except that they may incorporate elements of this Area Plan by reference, as appropriate. IM-7. New specific Plans adopted for properties in the East of 101 Area shall be in substantial conformance with this Area Plan. Specific Plans are intended to function as detailed implementation packages, not as amendments to the Plan. IM-8. The City will adopt new zoning implementing the land tise categories of this Area Plan, and apply it throughout the Area. IM-9. No discretionary approval including a subdivision map, use permit, or design review permit, and no public improvement, shall be approved in the East of 101 Area until a finding has been made by the City that the proposed project is in substantial compliance with this Area Plan. IM-10. City staff shall review all construction projects requiring a building permit to ensure that they comply with the Design Guidelines and all other Area Plan provisions. IM-11. City staff shall review all construction projects requiring a building permit to ascertain whether fees need to be collected, and shall collect necessary fees prior to issuance of building permits. IM-12. New public and private projects in the East of 101 Area shall require site-specific environmental analysis as stipulated by the California Environmental Quality Act. V-23 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES AUGUST 1993 IM-13. Public infrastructure improvements should be implemented as soon as practical, but prior to major new development, in order to offset potential impacts to roadways, sewers, and other facilities and services. V-24 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES This page intentionally left blank. V-25 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SUMMARY OF PLAN POLICIES AUGUST 1993 This page intentionally left blank. V-26 Chapter 4 LAND USE ELEMENT ^ ^ This chapter presents the Land Use Element of the East of 101 Area Plan. The purpose of the Land Use Element is to establish the purpose, objectives, allowable uses, and development standards for each of the land use categories applicable to the East of 101 Area, as well as additional land use policies that would apply to all categories. The East of 101 Area's ultimate development potential under the Plan is also described. A. Criteria for New Development Policy LU-1. Developments planned for the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated. based on their merits and the net benefits they will provide to the East of 101 Area and the City of South San Francisco. In general, the City has the following goals for East of 101 development: • New development should enhance net revenues to the City by providing increased sales tax, property tax and other fees. • New development should create quality jobs for South San Francisco residents. Policy LU-2: New East of 101 Area developments should generally meet the following criteria: New land uses should enhance property values, thereby increasing property tax revenues in the East of 101 Area. At a minimum, improvements should have a value four times that of the land they are built on. New development should not have a net negative fiscal impact on the City, and should pay for all on- going City services it requires through taxes and fees. V-27 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 LAND USE ELEMENT • New land uses should be compatible with surrounding development and should not be detrimental to the overall economic viability of the East of 101 Area. • New developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101 Area. • The trip generation of new land uses should be within the projections of the Area Plan. • The demand for sewage treatment for each individual development should remain within the projections of the Area Plan. Not all new projects in the area will meet all criteria. However, the City will use these criteria in evaluating proposals for new development. B. Land Use Categories The land use configuration mapped in Figure 2 was developed from the land use concept and Plan goals of Chapter 3 and development criteria listed above. This map designates land uses for specific parcels in the area. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed plan land use allocations. The land use plan has been developed to provide a balance between industrial and commercial development. These two general classifications are designed to accommodate market demands for expansion of existing industrial and commercial uses. Policy LU-3: All development in the East of 101 Area shall be consistent with the provisions of the land use categories illustrated in Figure 2 and described in Policies LU-4 through LU-10. The land use categories for the East of 101 Area and their descriptions are listed below. Most land use categories include maximum allowed Floor Area Ratios. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the total square footage of building on a site to the total parcel size. For example, atwo-story building with floors of 1,000 square feet each built on a 4,000 square foot lot has an FAR of 0.50. V-28 Planned Commercial Planned Industrial ~; Light Industrial Coastal Commercial Airport-Related ~ I Open Space EAST ~ F i i f ~ AREA PLAN City o f South San Francisco B R A D 1' A 1V D A S S O c L A T E S ~ L A N N t l B A N p L A N U! C A t l A t C N I T{ C T! IFTGURE 2 Land Use Plan AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Table 1 AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ategory Allowed FAR Area (Acres) Existing Building Area (Sq.Ft.) Potential New Building (Sq.Ft.) Total Building Area at Buildout (Sq.Ft.) Planned Commercial .60 92 1,685,760 887,131 2,572,891 Light Industrial .50 241 4,634,457 1,522,664 6,157,121 Planned Industrial .45 520 8,801,189 3,231,665 12,032,854 Coastal Commercial .60 61 714,060 1,190,073 1,904,133 Gateway Specific Plan 1.25 96 1,211,570 4,003,700 5,215,270 Airport Related N/A 116 N/A N/A N/A Mixed Planned Commercial/ Planned Industrial .60 92 649,623 1,852,2_'30 2,501,853 Mixed Coastal Commercial/ Planned Industrial .60 46 378,710 663,583 1,042,293 Open Space .00 66 22,100 0 22,100 Total N/A 1,330 18,097,469 13,351,046 31,448,515 In addition to the land use policies listed here, this Area Plan also contains design policies for the area, which are included in Chapter 8, and numerous other development policies summarized in Chapter 3. 1. Planned Commercial The Planned Commercial land use category is intended to accommodate retail developments, office parks, hotels and motels, restaurants, and high-end offices. New development will be controlled through development standards and design guidelines to ensure compatibility between the allowed uses and the adjacent industrial areas. Hotel and motel uses will be encouraged specifically along South Airport Boulevard to strengthen the corridor's visitor and airport orientation. Retail uses are intended to provide services to the employees of the East of 101 Area as well as accommodate destination uses such as warehouse style retail specialty stores. This category applies to the majority of the western part of the East of 101 Area along Highway 101 and South Airport Boulevard. V-31 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 LAND USE ELEMENT 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, and personal and repair services. Policy LU-4b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Planned Commercial category is 0.60. Additional floor area may be permitted for hotel uses with Planning Commission approval, up to a maximum of 1.6 for full-service hotels. Allowed FARs for each land use category have been derived based on studies of modern development that matches each category. The allowed FAR of .60 for the Planned Commercial designation is based on the existing FARs at office buildings such as the Gateway Towers and Tomoe Oyster Point. Retail stores would be likely to meet this FAR, since they generally require greater parking than can be accommodated at this density. Hotels are allowed to have a higher FAR under the Area Plan, since hotels currently have some of the highest FARs in the planning area. 2. Planned Industrial The Planned Industrial land use category includes industrial parks, light manufacturing, distribution, wholesale and warehouse uses, office uses, and research and development. Incidental retail sales and commercial service uses are also allowed in the Planned Industrial category. This category applies to the majority of the northern part of the East of 101 Area. The principal development and employment-generating uses allowed in this district are characterized by research, product development and related activities. Small business space, offices, and support retail intended to serve the immediate area are also conducive to the Planned Industrial land use. The quality of on-site improvements in this area will commonly be higher than the Light Industrial category described below. The Planned Industrial land use category is intended to accommodate campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and office or warehouse uses in high quality buildings. Policy LU-5a. Uses allowed in the Planned Industrial category shall typically include non-nuisance light manufacturing, incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, offices, administrative activities, V-32 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT research and development facilities, "big-box" retail and warehouse sales, distributing facilities utilizing light delivery trucks, offices, and service businesses that serve the uses described above. Policy LU-Sb. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Planned Industrial category is 0.45. The maximum allowed FAR of .45 in the Planned Industrial category is similar to those in the Rouse, Pointe Grande and Edgewater Business Parks, which have FARs of approximately .36, .40 and .50 respectively. 3. Light Industrial The Light Industrial land use category is intended to accommodate existing industrial land uses and allow for a wide range of light industrial uses. New development will be controlled through development standards and design guidelines to ensure compatibility between the allowed uses and the adjacent bayfront properties and commercial areas. This category provides for those operations which require good accessibility and less stringent development standards than required in the Planned Industrial land use. In addition, the Light Industrial land use category caters towards distribution facilities and airport related businesses which require good accessibility to the San Francisco International Airport immediately south of the area. This category applies to the majority of the south-central part of the East of 101 Area. Policy LU-6a. Uses allowed in the Light Industrial category shall typically include light manufacturing and assembly plants, management and special trade contractor's offices and related services, warehouses, and trucking and distribution centers, auto repair and auto painting establishments and auto, truck, and equipment sales, offices and all uses which are described in the Planned Industrial land use category. Policy LU-6b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Light Industrial category is 0.50. The maximum FAR for Light Industrial development is set at .50 to allow slightly denser development than in the Planned Industrial category, since the Light Industrial area does not require as much landscaping or circulation area on-site. V-33 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 LAND USE ELEMENT 4. Coastal Commercial The Coastal Commercial land use category allows for planned commercial, hotel, or office facilities with a coastal orientation. These developments should include coastal accessibility as a major component of their design, in conjunction with the Open Space land uses along the bay shore. The sites which comprise this land use include the Oyster Point Marina and the Fuller- O'Brien site. New development will be controlled through design guidelines and development standards specifically created for the coastal properties. Policy LU-7a. Uses allowed in the Coastal Commercial category shall typically include business and professional services, administrative and business offices, convenience sales, restaurants, personal services, repair services, retail sales, hotel and motel uses with a coastal orientation, recreational facilities, and marinas. Policy LU-7b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Coastal Commercial category is 0.60. 5. Gateway Specific Plan Under this Area Plan, the Gateway Specific Plan will be kept in effect in the study area, under the following policies: Policy LU-8a. Uses allowed in the Gateway Specific Plan Area shall include retail, commercial, and research and development uses, as specified in the Gateway Specific Plan. Policy LU-8b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Gateway Specific Plan Area shall be that specified in the Gateway Specific Plan. 6. Airport-Related The Airport-Related land use category allows for large scale airport-related uses, consistent with the current uses found in the southern part of the East of 101 Area. This category can accommodate expansions of the San Francisco International Airport, as well as freight transportation and customs brokerage firms. Projects will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on an individual basis for their compatibility with the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan and the overall goals of the East of 101 Area. V-34 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU-9. Uses allowed in the Airport-Related category shall include uses consistent with the San Francisco International Airport, such as freight transportation and customs brokerage firms, as well as expansions of the San Francisco International Airport itself. 7. Open Space The Open Space category is intended to increase the opportunities for public recreation in the shoreline environment. This land use category provides public open space within the East of 101 Area for passive and active recreational activities. The majority of the open space in the East of 101 Area is located on the inland edge of the shoreline. This Open Space category is consistent with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission's policy of requiring linear park improvements of new developments whose properties are within 100 feet of the mean high tide line. These areas must be landscaped and have access and parking provided for them through any new development. Policy LU-10. Uses allowed in the Open Space category shall include parks, vista points, pedestrian and bicycle trail corridors, fishing facilities, playing fields, recreational buildings, interpretive centers, and undeveloped open space. 8. Mixed Land Use Categories The Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial and Coastal Commercial/Planned Industrial Mixed Use categories allow for the development of uses consistent with either of the two indicated categories. These categories provide for future flexibility and the ability to respond to changing development and market demands. Design guidelines for these mixed use areas are included in the Design Element to ensure that development is compatible with surrounding uses. C. Additional Land Use Policies The following policies apply to the entire East of 101 Area, providing guidance and interpretation for general planning within the East of 101 Area. Policy LU-11. No residential development shall occur in the East of 101 Area. V-35 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 LAND USE ELEMENT Noise, land use, and public facility conflicts related to housing in the East of 101 Area are substantial enough to prohibit the development of housing in the area. These impacts are discussed in more detail in the Environmental Impact Report which accompanies this document. Policy LU-12. The City shall track development for its impacts on roadway and sewage treatment capacity. Before the available capacities are used, the City will re-evaluate East of 101 Area land use categories, and may limit the future development of the area. To implement this policy, the City will institute a system of tracking for roadway levels of service and sewage capacity, with reports to the City Council at least once every two years. The circulation and public facility policies in Chapters 5 and 6 of this Plan will provide adequate service capacity for the level of development foreseen by the market study in the East of 101 Area through 2003. After 2003, or if development occurs more quickly than anticipated, there may not be sufficient capacity to serve new development in the area. Therefore, the City may have to cap development at some time in the future. Policy LU-13. Maximum allowed Floor Area Ratios for the land use categories in Policies LU-4 through LU-8 shall apply only to new construction. Where existing buildings on a site exceed the allowed FAR, they may be replaced or remodeled with buildings up to the existing FAR on the site, provided that all new construction meets all other policies of this Plan and all other codes and regulations in effect at the time of construction. This policy is necessary to allow for the continued use of parcels in the East of 101 Area that have already been developed in excess of the allowed Floor Area Ratios for their land use categories. The square footage of all existing buildings in the area has been considered in the traffic and service provisions of this Area Plan. Policy LU-14: The City shall encourage development of campus settings and planned growth for multiple parcel developments and shall promote the development of facility "Master Plans" and design standards that meet the Area Plan's objectives. Master Plans shall include specific commitments to high quality design that meet the City's goals for a site. V-36 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU-15. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratios for the land use categories in Policies LU-4 through LU-8 may be exceeded through development of a "Master Plan" after Planning Commission review to ensure that sufficient roadway and infrastructure capacity can be provided. The City has been working with Genentech, the nation's premier biotechnology firm, to develop a corporate master plan. The establishment of a campus setting on the Genentech site could entail several elements, including possible closure of the Grandview Drive connection to Point San Bruno Boulevard. In this case, the maintenance of an emergency vehicle access loop would likely necessitate the extension of Point San Bruno Boulevard to East Grand Avenue. However, as long as the current Point San Bruno Boulevard/Grandview Drive emergency access connection remains, the Point San Bruno Boulevard extension should not be needed. If this extension were to remain a public road, it is unlikely that traffic would be reduced on Point San Bruno Boulevard. Two other changes that have been considered are vacating non-Genentech tenants from Kauffman Court, and reducing the width of Forbes Boulevard from four lanes to two. The former would provide a more contiguous site in keeping with a campus setting and would therefore be advantageous. It is possible that a portion of Forbes Boulevard between Kauffman Court and San Bruno Boulevard could, if ultimately privatized by Genentech, be reduced to two lanes. The issue of establishing a campus setting would best be undertaken in conjunction with development of the Genentech Master Plan. Point San Bruno Boulevard and the eastern end of Forbes Boulevard would then be treated as on-site circulation issues evaluated in combination with various parking plans and bicycle/pedestrian circulation schemes. Other similar master plans might also be undertaken by developers and businesses in other parts of the East of 101 Area. Policy LU-16. Noxious industrial uses that emit loud noises, odors, large quantities of pollutants, or hazardous materials or are visually unattractive, such as meat processing plants, above-ground flammable liquid storage, and other similar intensive industrial uses, shall generally not be allowed in the Fast of 101 Area. Such uses may be allowed only in the Light Industrial and Airport-Related categories, but only after Planning Commission review to ensure that V-37 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 LAND USE ELEMENT they would be compatible with surrounding uses and would not create unacceptable nuisances or hazards. Policy LU-17. Legally established auto salvage yards located in the East of 101 Area shall be permitted to remain but should not be allowed to expand in the area. All storage and loading activities shall be screened and landscaping provided adjacent to public rights-of--way. All other auto salvage yards shall be prohibited. Policy LU-18. Auto, truck, and equipment sales and rental lots shall not be permitted in the Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, or Coastal Commercial categories. Uses which create an inviting and positive atmosphere will be encouraged in the East of 101 Area. Many of the above mentioned nuisance uses would conflict with the visitor serving and recreational uses which are to be encouraged along the bay shore. In addition, office and research and development markets may be discouraged if these uses were to locate within the planned and coastal areas. Design guidelines shall apply to all uses. Policy LU-19. Auto, truck and equipment sales and rental lots and vehicle rental agencies should not be permitted in the East of 101 Area unless such uses are located under major utility lines. Industrial uses with potential negative impacts may be permitted if they are restricted in their intensity and location and if negative environmental impacts are mitigated. Policy LU-20. Drive-thru restaurnnts may be built as components of commercial centers in the East of 101 Area, but should not be built as stand-alone uses on single parcels. Drive-thru restaurants can help to create a negative strip commercial image in an area, and can also contribute to localized traffic problems. Thus they should be avoided as free-standing uses, particularly along commercial corridors. On the other hand, drive-thru restaurants could help to meet the need for additional low priced restaurants in the East of 101 Area, so they would be appropriate in commercial centers where they would have lower visual impacts and would be buffered from roadway circulation. V-38 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU-21. Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use Commission based on FAR Part 77 Criteria. Maximum heights have been established by the Airport Land Use Commission which prevent objects from affecting navigable airspace. These established maximum heights are shown on Figure 6 of the Existing Conditions Report. Policy LU-22. Retail and personal services shall be encouraged throughout the area to serve the employees of the East of 101 Area. In the Light Industrial and Planned Industrial categories, dedicated retail space may be included in a development without being applied to the allowed FAR, provided that such development includes adequate parking and does not exceed 10 percent of the building square footage of a project. Policy LU-23. In addition to encouraging retail services within the East of 101 Area, patrons will be encouraged to use the downtown. The City shall encourage programs that educate employees of the area and promote the use of the downtown as a commercial center. The East of 101 Area generally lacks retail personal and convenience services, such as dry cleaners, that would serve employees in the area during their work days. Retail services are also available to East of 101 employees in Downtown South San Francisco. Access is available to the downtown via the Grand Avenue overcrossing. Although the downtown is relatively close to the East of 101 Area, the physical separation that is created by Highway 101 creates an impression that it is further away. Some possibilities for encouraging use of the downtown include scrip money programs, which Genentech has been promoting, and improved transportation and shuttle service to the downtown. Policy LU-24. Child care facilities shall be encouraged as part of any office or industrial park development over 50,000 square feet. Child care facilities may be built as part of a commercial or industrial development and shall not be counted as part of the Floor Area Ratio of the project. The only facility currently offering child care in the East of 101 Area is operated by Genentech and is for the exclusive use of Genentech employees. V-39 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 A number of businesses and employees have identified a need for additional child care facilities in the project area. Policy LU-25. Intensive, transit-oriented development shall be encouraged within one-quarter mile of the CalTrain station. If the City Planning Commission finds that a project contains transit-oriented design features (as described in the Design Element), then the allowed FAR may be increased by up to 20 percent. Intensive, transit-oriented development would allow area employees to eat, shop, or run errands without the use of a private automobile. High density development near the CalTrain station would encourage use of public transit, particularly if parking in the employment center is limited or is expensive. In addition, close attention to neighborhood design and characteristics, with respect to building setbacks, variety of commercial land uses, landscaping, sidewalks, and crosswalks, can encourage pedestrian or bicycle travel. Policy LU-26. The City shall protect buildings, sites, and land uses which are historically significant. At this time, no historic buildings or other resources are known to exist in the East of 101 Area. However, if any are found, they should be preserved. Policy LU-27. Re-use of obsolete rail spur rights-of--way in the East of 101 Area to meet the goals of this Plan shall be encouraged. Future use of the existing railroad spurs should be confined to freight service as warranted by the needs of adjacent properties. Currently, only two spurs are in operation within the East of 101 Area. The active east/west spur diverges from the mainline at Airport Boulevard just north of San Mateo Avenue, and extends to the Fuller-O'Brien property at the east end of East Grand Avenue. From this spur, an additional north/south spur crosses East Grand Avenue and follows Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue, proceeding to the east. Re-use of the abandoned rail spur right-of--ways could include private development, open space enhancement, bicycle or pedestrian circulation, or parking to serve the employees of the East of 101 Area. Any of these uses would be in keeping with the goals of this Plan. V-40 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT The existing railroad spurs are probably not appropriate for passenger rail service because the distribution of development throughout the area and accessibility to the lines would not allow for cost effective passenger service. Furthermore, with many of the spurs crossing at-grade roadways, passenger service could create unacceptable increases in the frequency of train interruptions to peak-hour vehicle traffic. D. East of 101 Area Development Potential The gross acreage of vacant land within each land use category in the East of 101 Area gives some indication of probable Area Plan buildout. It has been assumed that the densities of existing development will remain constant, although these sites may be redeveloped with new structures. As shown in Table 1, the East of 101 Area could probably accommodate a total of 13,351,046 square feet of new building area. This would result in a total building area of 28,928,515 square feet in the East of 101 Area. This new development would comprise 1,629,040 square feet within the Planned Commercial category, 1,522,664 square feet within the Light Industrial category, 3,300,617 square feet within the Planned Industrial category, 1,190,073 square feet within the Coastal Commercial category, 2,907,853 square feet within the mixed land use categories, and 2,800,800 square feet of new development within the Gateway Specific Plan Area. No residential land uses will be allowed in the East of 101 Area. V-41 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-42 Chapter 5 CIRCULATION ELEMENT This chapter presents the Circulation Element of the East of 101 Area Plan. The purpose of the Circulation Element is to establish the transportation system components needed to accommodate the projected travel demand under the interim development of the East of 101 Area Plan. It therefore provides the means by which to balance transportation demand and capacity within and around the East of 101 Area. The Circulation Element includes recommendations for the following: • On-site roadway facilities, including major access points and intersections, arterial and collector streets, • On-site transit facilities, • On-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities, • On-site parking facilities, and • Off-site transportation system improvement needs. The existing transportation facilities and the planned improvements serving the East of 101 Area are described in Chapter 9 of the Existing Conditions Report for the East of 101 Area Plan. These facilities and improvements serve as the basis for the recommendations included in the Circulation Element. A. Policies and Improvements 1. Roadways This section establishes policies and identifies the roadway facilities and improvements to the baseline roadway system that would provide the trans- portation capacity needed to serve projected development in the East of 101 Area through 2003. The baseline roadway system, as defined in this study, is described in the Existing Conditions Report. V-43 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 CIRCULATION ELEMENT Policy CIR-1. Level of Service D shall be the minimum acceptable operating standard for intersections in the East of 101 Area. Policy CIR-2. The City shall ensure that intersection levels of service do not drop below Level D by tracking existing levels of service, engaging in a program of necessary City traffic improvements, and requiring developments that would impact levels of service to provide for necessary traffic mitigation. Policy CIR-3. The City shall develop a program of roadway improvements that includes construction or financing of the roadway improvements to meet the requirements of development projected in the East of 101 Area. According to the analysis completed for this Plan, the following roadway improvements will be necessary to serve projected development through 2003: • Widen Oyster Point Boulevard from two to four lanes from the existing two-lane segment west of Eccles Avenue to the proposed Gull Road. • Widen Littlefield Avenue from two to four lanes from East Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue. Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Littlefield Avenue, and add a westbound left-turn pocket on East Grand Avenue at the East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue intersection. • Install traffic signals at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. • Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Gateway Boulevard at East Grand Avenue. • Add a second through lane at the approach from the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard. • Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp (scissors). • Install traffic signals at Produce Avenue and the Southbound Highway 101 off-ramp. • Add an eastbound right-turn lane on Oyster Point Boulevard at Gateway Boulevard. V-44 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT • Add aright-turn lane from eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to Gateway Boulevard. Restripe southbound left-turn lane of Forbes Boulevard at East Grand Avenue as a shared through/left-turn lane. The principal roadway facilities in the area will consist of those described in the Existing Conditions Report, with the addition of the improvements described in this policy. The number of lanes on each roadway segment and the traffic control devices at the key intersections after the implementation of the improvements are shown on Figure 3. The resulting intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 4. Policy CIR-4. Roadway improvements to serve East of 101 traffic that are needed in areas outside the City of South San Francisco jurisdiction shall be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and jurisdictions. As stated above, it appears that improvements will be needed at both Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp, which are in the City of Brisbane. Improvements affecting Highway 101 will also require cooperation with Caltrans. This policy states that the City of South San Francisco will coordinate with these and other agencies as needed. Policy CIR-5. Roadway access to the Koll site shall be provided via a bridge across a portion of the Bay between the site and the Shearwater Site, or via flyover ramps from the site to Bayshore Boulevard. If a bridge is built, it shall not allow access from Brisbane into the East of 101 Area. Improvements shall be completed by the project sponsor at the time of development of the Koll site. With a bridge access, traffic from the Koll site development would load onto the East of 101 Area street system at Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevard, and such trip routing has been assumed in the planning for the area. However, traffic should not access the East of 101 Area directly from Siena Point in Brisbane, since this would overload the South San Francisco traffic system. Alternatively, access could be provided to the Koll site via flyover ramps from the site to Bayshore Boulevard. Traffic on the East of 101 roadway system V-45 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT • Restripe northbound approach of Gull Road at Oyster Point Boulevard to include aleft-turn lane and a shared left-and right-turn lane. Restripe southbound left-turn lane of Forbes Boulevard at East Grand Avenue as a shared through/left-turn lane. The principal roadway facilities in the area will consist of those described in the Existing Conditions Report, with the addition of the improvements described in this policy. The number of lanes on each roadway segment and the traffic control devices at the key intersections after the implementation of the improvements are shown on Figure 3. The resulting intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 4. Policy CIR-4. Roadway improvements to serve East of 101 traffic that are needed in areas outside the City of South San Francisco jurisdiction shall be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and jurisdictions. As stated above, it appears that improvements will be needed at both Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp, which are in the City of Brisbane. Improvements affecting Highway 101 will also require cooperation with Caltrans. This policy states that the City of South San Francisco will coordinate with these and other agencies as needed. Policy CIR-5. Roadway access to the Koll site shall be provided via a bridge across a portion of the Bay between the site and the Shearwater Site, or via flyover ramps from the site to Bayshore Boulevard. If a bridge is built, it shall not allow access from Brisbane into the East of 101 Area. Improvements shall be completed by the project sponsor at the time of development of the Koll site. With a bridge access, traffic from the Koll site development would load onto the East of 101 Area street system at Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevard, and such trip routing has been assumed in the planning for the area. However, traffic should not access the East of 101 Area directly from Sierra Point in Brisbane, since this would overload the South San Francisco traffic system. Alternatively, access could be provided to the Koll site via flyover ramps from the site to Bayshore Boulevard. Traffic on the East of 101 roadway system V-45 \dded lizotion EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 3 Roadway Circulation System Improvements L~^ ~N o ~k ' ~ ~ V ~ N ~ ~ V '~' sB ~i,Q (. o ~Rf ~`~ ~OdllN ~~o0y/ ~`~ HARBOR ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ~- ~ 2~ ti'F'.o ~ ~ I I ~~ o ~. ~c'~ m op r ~ C ~ ~` ~~ A O,~Nm L ~-` ~ ~ ba~ 9 ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ Lq ~ N o ~ / \~` \~ ~C / 'i~~~7\~ ~ ~I 1~~\ y ~ K / C ~ S. AIRPOR y ~. \ UTREFlELD ~~ ~ O Uryp~ ~ ~ P~ C0 ~J1 ~ 1~ \ ~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,. ~ ~i ~ A AA~ E '~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ co ~ ~ \ - ~ ~ \V~ ~y S. NRPORi ~- ~ 1 ~ I r " 1\ ~~ o RT- pUeuvu . ~~ I~ E ~ o~~ y ~ ~ ~r ~ o ~ ~ r p ~ rr ~,P ~ .~ I 1 ~ Syr s f ~ p~ O~ gyp ~, ~i ~~ L S .~ 11 ~ ~ ~ I I hb ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~,~`F ~~ ~R ~V- \ F~ t?? Arn~u~ III I rno ~ ~ F~ ~E ~ ° '~ C~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~'L Yso ~ ~ A ~ ~~ ~ S'~q' W 7F'O ~ F J FcC~~ O r ono ~ ~- ~ Ryaodad ~~ \~ ~ ~ `7~ ~~~~ ~•~ III t~ 11 ~~u ,~,~ ~odyr .5 J ~ a f~ h ~ h ? ? ~`~ ~ r r ? 3onaoaa ~'/yr ~ ~ ~ ~ I T 4 f " '~~r A r o=c ~ O> o ~ '~ ~ y~ ~' U c 1~ ~~ HIV ~ \ 1C~ \ y \\ ] ~ ~ 1 ~~O ~1V ~ r ~ V ~ ~ c L'?o V o ad P tiR„b s Ar 3anao C Rr B~ . ~ y ., ~~ your a ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ , ° ~ . z 10 L ~ ~ icc~, 6 p N rt ~ ~F m > s O '` ` ~ ~~ oP N ~ R N Z e ~n ~ N ~ N N 3~ N yag~ N A W z ~ ~ .~ :v ,< :x ~v ea ~ N ``-n :~ 1~ f'7 0 cn 0 cn n cn' 0 y~m y N b O~ ~0 R. 0 O Cam. r t9 A ~_ n'j A C A7 r. b 1"r A H fD ~_ O~ e~ w AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT would be reduced by approximately 700 peak-hour trips with the construction of the flyover ramps. 2. Transit Policy CIR-6. All new developments shall contain facilities to support transit, provided by both public and private means. The intermediate level of development in 2003 will generate additional transit trips but not at a sufficient magnitude to require additional transit facilities. However, future development should provide these facilities to support future transit. These facilities include bus duckouts and transit shelters with benches, transit maps, and trash receptacles. The planning of these facilities shall be coordinated with San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and the Multi-City Transportation System Management Agency. Policy CIR-7. The City of South San Francisco and the employers of the area shall work with the Multi-City TSM Agency to increase shuttle bus service and usage. Several of the existing Area employers are currently providing shuttle bus service to CalTrain and BART. The Multi-City TSM Agency is coordinating these shuttle bus services. All new employers with 100 employees or more will be required to have TSM/TDM programs under the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted Regulation 13, Rule 1. The yet-to- be adopted Rule 2 would require TSM/T'DM programs of all new employers with 25 or more employees. The City and the Agency will work with the employers in determining which elements are most successful in reducing vehicle trips. Policy CIR-8. The City shall study the possible relocation of the CalTrnin Station from its existing site to a location which serves both the employees of the East of 101 Area and the employees and residents of the rest of the City. The current CalTrain station is located on a site just north of East Grand Avenue, but it is not directly accessible from East Grand Avenue due to the grade separated freeway crossing on East Grand. The development of a new CalTrain station may have benefits for the East of 101 Area and the City as a whole, but it might also have liabilities. One possible new location would be along Oyster Point Boulevard on the Shearwater property. This location would allow for more direct roadway access V-49 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 to the station from Highway 101 and the rest of the East of 101 Area and South San Francisco. Development on the Shearwater site could be oriented around the rail station, so that it takes advantage of access opportunities offered by transit. Parking for train riders might also be provided on the Shearwater site, provided that arrangements for land acquisition could be made. The City is also studying the possibility of relocating the CalTrain station in conjunction with the extension of BART to San Francisco International Airport. To work as amulti-modal transfer station to BART, the CalTrain station may need to be relocated to another site either inside or outside the East of 101 Area. However, moving the station would almost certainly result in the loss of some existing CalTrain riders, and it would make the station further from downtown South San Francisco. There would also be some construction costs associated with moving the station, which would be an additional liability. A preliminary Benefit/Disbenefit Study of relocating the station under the Area Plan development scenario, which was conducted for this Area Plan, showed that the two alternative locations appear to be very similar in total benefits and disbenefits. Thus the City, in conjunction with the Joint Powers Board that operates CalTrain, will need to study potential relocation more closely and to access other alternative sites before a decision is made. 3. Bicycles and Pedestrians As outlined in Goal 2.4, the City seeks to encourage bicycling and walking as transportation modes in the East of 101 Area. The following policies will help to meet this goal. Policy CIR-9. Sidewalks shall be provided along the roadway frontages of all new developments and pedestrian signals and crosswalks shall be considered for all newly signalized intersections. Policy CIR-10. The City shall develop a program of bicycle circulation improvements. Preliminarily, the following improvements seem appropriate: Extend the current bike lanes on Gateway Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard. V-50 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT • Provide bike lanes or bike paths on Oyster Point Boulevard. Bike lanes shall be added to East Grand Avenue to connect businesses along it to the bike route on Airport Boulevard. Bicyclists could be allowed to use the sidewalks on the Grand Avenue/Highway 101 overcrossing. Add signs to the Utah Avenue and Harbor Way bike routes, as designated by the City's General Plan. This signage would reinforce their usage. These improvements are shown on Figure 5. Policy CIR-11. The City shall include bicycle detection loops in all new traffic signals, -and shall install detection loops at existing signalized intersections if feasible. At signalized intersections, bicyclists can wait a long time for signals to change since they may not trigger the detection loops designed for cars. Therefore, detection loops for bicycles are necessary to facilitate cycling and to allow cyclists to move through intersections effectively. Policy CIR-12. All new developments of 10,000 square feet or more shall include showers, locker rooms, and secure bicycle parking areas/facilities (lockers) to support the use of bicycles. Facilities such as showers, locker rooms and bicycle parking facilitate bicycling by allowing employees to change clothes before or after cycling, and by providing security for bicycles. Policy CIR-13. Bicycle lanes and/or paths should be incorporated into roadway widening and new construction projects where feasible. 4. Transportation Demand Management Policy CIR-14. The City of South San Francisco shall support transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) programs in coordination with the Multi-City Transportation System Management Agency. V-51 os EAST OF 1~1 AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S .~...... ... ~....~... .. a.~..~.. FIGURE 5 Bicycle Circulation Plan AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT TDM and TSM programs include actions to reduce vehicular trips and to increase vehicle occupancy to improve air quality and to reduce congestion. These programs are required by several pieces of legislation and are addressed in numerous plans and policies. The City of South San Francisco has a TSM ordinance and is a member of the Multi-City Transportation System Management (TSM) Agency. Many of the employers in the East of 101 Area have active TSM programs that include the following elements: • An on-site TSM coordinator/manager. • An annual survey of employees and report to the City of South San Francisco that details the status of the TSM program and ridesharing among employees. • A carpool/vanpool match program with either SamTrans or RIDES. • Preferential parking for carpools, vanpools, and bicycles. • Staggered work hours that begin and/or end outside the peak commute hours. • A commitment to future shuttle service among the area employees to local transit stops (including CalTrain, SamTrans, and BART). • A commitment to encourage SamTrans to provide increased bus service in the East of 101 Area. 5. Parking Requirements Policy CIR-15. The City's parking requirements shall be reduced to account for decreased vehicle use as required by trip reduction programs. City parking requirements currently do not include any reductions to account for decreased vehicle use as required by the trip reduction programs. Therefore, it is recommended that City parking requirements for new developments be revised to allow for more flexibility for individual projects that demonstrate less parking demand. The City's zoning ordinance requires one parking space per 300 gross square feet of office floor area and one parking space per 250 gross feet of research and development space. It is recommended that the City reduce the parking requirements for research and development space to one parking space per 500 gross square feet. V-53 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 CIRCULATION ELEMENT This recommendation is based on generation demand rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The Institute of Transportation Engineers identifies the demand rate of a research center (code 760) as being 1.75 per 1,000 gross square feet. A supply rate would include an approximate 15 percent surplus, or a rate of approximately 2 per 1,000 gross square feet. The City's current parking requirement is equal to a supply rate of 4 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet, greatly exceeding the required parking for such development. Parking requirement reductions will also encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation, such as shuttle services, mass transit, and bicycling. Policy CIR-16. For master planned developments, (as described under Policy LU-14), the City may allow flexible parking requirements based on the characteristics of the development. Some East of 101 Area businesses, such as Genetech, have found that they do not require as much parking as would be required under the City's parking requirements. This policy allows these businesses to prepare Master Plans and to negotiate with the City through the Master Plan process to implement reduced parking standards that reflect the actual businesses on-site. Policy CIR-17. The City shall develop a strategy to mitigate on-street parking problems in the F.s~st of 101 Area. Parking of semi-trucks on streets in the East of 101 Area currently causes limitation on views and access, thereby impeding circulation in the area. Under this policy, City staff from the police, planning and public works departments will cooperate to discourage the use of City streets for truck parking and storage. 6. Loading Areas Policy CIR-18. Loading areas shall be located so that truck loading and maneuvering does not disrupt traffic flow withln a project site or along a public street. Loading areas within development projects shall be designed to minimize conflicts with current and proposed circulation systems. Loading areas shall be located so that trucks will not have to use the public street for maneuvering to access the loading docks. V-54 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT B. RoudwAy Improvement Costs The following are the assumptions used to estimate the. probable order-of- magnitude costs for the roadway improvements listed in this chapter. It is the intent that all roadway widening improvements be designed to accommodate truck traffic. 1. Oyster Point Boulevard Widening This project is to widen the existing two-lane section of Oyster Point Boulevard to four lanes east of the existing four-lane section to the future intersection of the proposed Gull Road. This is a distance of approximately 2,400 feet. The typical section for the widened roadway used for the estimate consists of 30-foot wide pavement widths in each direction, a 16-foot landscaped median, and a 5-foot walkway along the northern frontage with 5 feet of landscaping between the curb and walkway. The widening is assumed for this cost analysis to occur only in the northern frontage. This will require a jog in alignment from the existing four-lane section to the west, but will allow retaining the southern frontage improvement and existing roadway pavement to be used for the eastbound lane. This jog will also avoid relocating or undergrounding the existing powerline along the southern frontage and to avoid demolition of an existing building and retaining wall. However, the estimate assumes that with this jog the existing railroad spur along the northern frontage will need to be relocated. The estimated costs for this project based on the above assumptions is in the order-of-magnitude of $928,000. This estimate is based on very preliminary conceptual study, and thus contains a contingency of 25 percent. A breakdown of the items included in this cost estimate is shown in Table 2. In addition, approximately 91,000 square feet of right-of-way would be needed. It is assumed that most of this right-of-way could be exacted from project developers as a condition of approval for new development in the area. 2. Littlefield Avenue Widening This project is to widen Littlefield Avenue from two lanes of traffic to four lanes between East Grand Avenue and Utah Avenue, a distance of 2,000 feet. This project will also provide an additional left-turn lane from westbound East Grand Avenue to southbound Littlefield Avenue. The current roadway width is 40 feet, which provides two travel lanes with on-street parking on both sides of the street. The cost estimate for this project assumes that the 40-foot street V-55 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 Table 2 OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD WIDENING ESTIMATED COSTS (1993 Dollars) Item Quantity Unit Unit. Price Cast Remove Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk 1,200 Linear Ft. $4.00 $4,800 Remove AC Pavement 20,000 Sq. Ft. 0.40 8,000 Grading 1 Each 20,000.00 20,000 Relocate Utility Poles 4 Each 5,000.00 20,000 Relocate Fire Hydrants 1 Each 1,200.00 1,200 Relocate Fence 350 Each 10.00 3,500 Fine Grade 132,000 Sq. Ft. 0.25 33,000 AC Pavement Section 66,000 Sq. Ft. 4.00 264,000 Curb & Gutter 2,400 Linear Ft. 12.00 28,800 Median Curb 4,400 Linear Ft. 10.00 44,000 5-Foot Sidewalk 2,400 Linear Ft. 10.00 24,000 18-Inch Storm Drain 280 Linear Ft. 30.00 8,400 Storm Drain Catch Basin 4 Each 1,500.00 6,000 Street Monuments 5 Each 250.00 1,250 Traffic Striping 9,000 Linear Ft. 1.50 13,500 Traffic Signs 6 Each 150.00 900 Electroliers 12 Each 2,000.00 24,000 Relocate Railroad Spur 1,000 Linear Ft. 60.00 60,000 Median Landscape 32,000 Sq. Ft. 2.50 80,000 North Frontage Landscape 11,000 Sq. Ft. 2.50 27,500 Subtotal $645,350 Design and Construction Administration @ 15% 96,650 Subtotal $742,000 Contingency (@ 2S%) 186,000 TOTAL $928,000 V-56 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Table 3 LITTLEFIELD AVENUE WIDENING ESTIMATED COSTS (1993 Dollars) Item Quantity Unit ' Unit Price Cost Remove Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk 500 Linear Ft. $4.00 $2,000 Remove Curb & Gutter 1,500 Linear Ft. 3.00 $4,500 Fine Grade 20,000 Sy. Ft. 0.25 5,000 AC Pavement Section 12,000 Sq. Ft. 4.50 54,000 Curb, Gutter & 4-Foot Sidewalk 2,000 Linear Ft. 12.00 24,000 Driveway Conforms 8 Each 1,000.00 8,000 Move Catch Basins 6 Each 1,800.00 10,800 Relocate Fire Hydrants 4 Each 1,200.00 4,800 Traffic Striping 6,000 Linear Ft. 1.50 9,000 Traffic Signs 8 Each 150.00 1,200 Subtotal $123,300 Design and Construction Administration (@ 15%) 18,500 Subtotal 5141,800 Contingency (@ 25%) 35,200 TOTAL 5177,000 V-57 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 Table 4 GATEWAY BOULEVARD RIGHT-TURN LANE ESTIMATED COSTS (1993 Dollars) Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Remove Curb & Gutter 200 Linear Ft. $3.00 $600 Fine Grade 3,600 Sq. Ft. 0.25 900 AC Pavement Section 3,600 Sq. Ft. 4.50 16,200 Curb, Gutter and S-Foot Sidewalk 200 Linear Ft. 18.00 3,600 Traffic Striping 1 Each 1,000.00 1,000 Traffic Signs 2 Each 150.00 300 Subtotal $22,600 Design and Construction Administration (@ 15%) 3,400 Subtotal $2(y000 Contingency (@ 20%) S,2pp TOTAL $31,200 Table 5 HIGHWAY 101 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP AT BAYSHORE BOULEVARD ESTIMATED COSTS (1993 Dollars) Item Quantity Ualt Unit Price s Aanount Fine Grade 12,800 Sq. Ft. 0.25 $ 3,200 AC Pavement Section 8,400 Sq. Ft. 4.50 37,800 Retaining Wall 400 Linear Ft. 100.00 40,000 4-Foot Chain Link Fence 400 Linear Ft. 10.00 4,000 Island Curb 100 Linear Ft. 9.00 900 Traffic Striping & Signing 1 Each 3,000.00 3,000 Subtotal $ gg,900 Design and Construction Administration (@ 1S%) 13,300 Subtotal $102,200 Contingency @ 20% 20,400 TOTAL 5122,600 V-58 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT would be widened to 46 feet, which would provide four travel lanes with no on-street parking. The project is assumed to widen the roadway six feet along the west frontage with new curb and gutter. While sidewalks now only exist on portions of the western frontage, a new 4'/z-foot sidewalk will be added the entire length of this road section. Widening only on the west frontage will avoid relocating the power poles and reconstructing the curb, gutter and sidewalk along the eastern frontage. The proposed improvement will fit within the existing 60-foot wide right-of-way. The additional left-turn lane from East Grand Avenue is assumed to fit within the existing street width; therefore, only traffic resigning and restriping is included in the cost estimate for this item. The estimated probable order-of-magnitude costs for this project is $177,000. A breakdown of the items in the cost estimate is shown in Table 3. Note that due to the uncertainties of project scope related to modifying and conforming to existing improvements, including the railroad crossing, a relatively high contingency of 25 percent is included in this estimate. 3. East Grand/Littlefield Traffic Signal This project would provide a traffic signal as part of the roadway modifications outlined above. Installation of this traffic signal would include bicycle detection loops. Estimated costs are $138,000, which includes $100,000 for the signal, a 15 percent allowance for design and administration, and a 20 percent contingency. 4. Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Right-Turn Lane This project is to add aright-turn lane from northbound Gateway Boulevard to eastbound East Grand Avenue. The existing powerline tower will limit the right-turn lane to about 150 feet in length. This project will consist of removing the existing curb and gutter, widening the roadway by 12 feet, providing new curb, gutter and sidewalk, and installing related traffic signing and striping. Right-of--way considerations were not included. Order-of- magnitude costs for this project is $31,200. A detail of the items included in this estimate is shown in Table 4. V-59 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 CIRCULATION ELEMENT 5. Bayshore Boulevard Off-Ramp Widening The existing off-ramp will be widened to two lanes from the freeway to the merge with the southbound lane of Bayshore Boulevard. The order-of- magnitude cost for this project is estimated to be $122,600. A detailed breakdown of this estimate is shown in Table 5. The estimate assumes that an average 3-foot high retaining wall will be needed to widen the off-ramp north of the intersection, and that curbed islands will be provided south of the intersection between the off-ramp lanes and the Bayshore Boulevard lanes. 6. Scissors Signalization This project is to provide a traffic signal at the intersection of the off-ramp and the northbound lane of Bayshore Boulevard. The addition of this signal would include bicycle detection loops. This signal is estimated to cost $138,000, which includes $100,000 for the signal, a 15 percent allowance for design and administration, and a 20 percent contingency. 7. Highway 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Produce Avenue Traffic Signal This project is to provide a traffic signal to facilitate the left-turn movement from the off-ramp to southbound Produce Avenue. No roadway modification other than simply striping and signing are expected. The addition of this signal would include bicycle detection loops. The order-of-magnitude costs for this signal is $138,000, which includes $100,000 for the signal, a 15 percent allowance for design and administration, and a 20 percent contingency. S. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Right-Turn Lane This project is to add aright-turn lane from eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to southbound Gateway Boulevard. Based on the costs for the Gateway Boulevard/East Grand right-turn lane, costs for this improvement are estimated at $31,200. 9. Restriping of Gull Road at Oyster Point Boulevard This project would involve restriping only, and would take place during construction of Gull Road. Because there would be no additional cost associated with the project and it would be completed with Gull Road, it is not included in the Financing and Implementation Elements. V-60 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT 10. Restriping of Forbes Boulevard at East Grand Avenue This project would involve restriping only, and no new construction. Estimated costs would be $10,000. 11. Bicycle Detection Loops This project is to add bicycle detection loops to existing signalized intersections in the East of 101 Area. These loops are estimated to cost $2,000 each, including design and contingency. Therefore, these loops would cost approximately $18,000 to install at all of the nine existing signalized intersections. C. Roadway Operations Under Plan Buildout The calculations of projected roadway operations that will occur under the Area Plan are shown in detail in the Environmental Impact Report on the Plan. This section summarizes the results of that analysis. Roadway operations were analyzed in the EIR at both maximum buildout and projected 2003 buildout of the Plan. Because market demand is not projected to result in full buildout of the East of 101 Area for many years, Plan circulation improvements are designed to meet the development projections for 2003. After 2003, the City will closely monitor development levels and traffic operations in the East of 101 Area, and may limit allowed development if mitigation of traffic impacts is not practical, as described in Policy LU-12. 1. Intersection Operations Traffic volumes that would result from projected 2003 development in the Area Plan were assigned to the baseline roadway network, and the resulting traffic operations were assessed for the purpose of determining the adequacy of roadway and intersection capacity. The analysis entailed an evaluation of AM and PM peak hour conditions at 26 key intersections located within or adjacent to the East of 101 Area. Intersections were the subject of study, rather than roadway segments, since intersections are generally the most constraining part of a roadway system. Intersection operations were evaluated using Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed V-61 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 CIRCULATION ELEMENT conditions with excessive delays. The standard for minimum acceptable intersection operations under the Area Plan is LOS D. Using the projected traffic volumes, an intersection level of service analysis was undertaken to assess the adequacy of the roadway system and the recommended improvements presented on Figures 3 and 4. The results of the analysis, shown in Table 6, indicate that all key intersections are expected to operate satisfactorily with the recommended circulation system. 2. Freeway Operations Projections of future travel demand from East of 101 Area development have also been applied to the segments of Highway 101 adjacent to the East of 101 Area. The evaluation of freeway operations was based on levels of service associated with the volume-to-capacity ratio for mainline traffic, as suggested in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual. Level of Service E was selected as the minimum accepted standard of operations for freeway segments in conformance with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program's standards for Highway 101. Freeway operations were analyzed in each direction on four segments of Highway 101. These segments are between the Sierra Point Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard interchanges, between the Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue interchanges, between the Grand Avenue interchange and South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue ramps, and between the South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue ramps and the Interstate 380 interchange. The results are summarized in Table 7. The results indicate that only one of the eight segments would operate below the minimum standard of LOS E. On the southbound segment between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue the traffic demand is projected to exceed capacity during the PM peak hour of travel. During the AM peak hour, the northbound segment between Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard would operate very near capacity. V-62 ~ ~" ~w z o° '. w O~ F U ~x U d F z w a a z 0 E-~ U a ~ U H W U W ~1 a a O H U w w z O m Q U U as as r~ U A U A A Q U Q A A A ~. 0 ,~. a p ~ ~. .a .~ ~ ~D O H M O O l~ O O~ ~O C M h O 00 V1 O .--~ V7 O C~ h O ~ 00 O ~ ~O O h [~ O V's 0p O ~ O O~ v3 O ..+ ~ ~ N 00 O ~D [~ O O~ t~ O U' O A Q U A W U U CQ A Q A A U Q U A m U x a ~ .y ~ t~ n C ~ C pp 00 O et 00 C V'f v~ C O~ V; C 00 ~G C v'~ ~n C ~D 00 C N et C N 00 C O 00 C et l~ C v~ et C V: .-. N "'' ~ G V~ ~O C O U 'C •--i rr .--i .ter .-. .-w .-. .-. .-+ .r .-. .-. .-. .r N .r .-. .r CO R R c0 c0 R c0 iC N R LO cp c0 i0 'G R R lE C by C Oq C Oq C Oq C bA C bq C OQ C OQ C Op C OQ C OD C OA C Oq C OQ ~? C 00 C bq C Oq (n fn fn (n fn fn VI Cn fn C%1 fA CA fn f%1 ~' fn fn fn a e ~ R tx o O ~ c R ~ ~ V1 ~ ~ ~ 'p C ~ y a a .. ~ ~ ~ ~' ' A c R C O a ate.. ~ , ~ ~ c7 c ca C O a a~+ ~ ~ U u`~ c co C O R. ~~+ ~ ~ ~ `~ C ° ~ ~ ~ ~ c a 'p C ~ ~ a a ~ a w o ., ~ ~ - ~ 'CS C ~ ~ a ~ ~ a C CC 'G C ~ ~ ~ R a ~ 00m \ .. 8. a ~ R 'C C ~ ~ ~ A 'o ego C ~r1~~. V ~ ~ ~ ~ 'v cCa C ~1~~ V ~ ~ ° 'v cCa C ~1~~ V ~ ~ ~ :.a v cCV C ~aF~.~. V ~ a .~ IRn c7 ~v cCa C ~h~~ V ~ ~ ~ x w .-• O ca z c ~ ~ v ~ U ~ ~ p" C _~ ~"' a a a O ~ ° W ~ ~ ~ 7 R ~R~ V ~ c°a $. ~, a ~ ~--~ N M 'V h ~ ~ O O~ O ~--~ N M 'a N ~ ~ O ~+ - .-. .-~ rr r. .--i .--i .-r .ti .-i rq ' o a, U U ¢ a, ¢ A Q 0 x 0. '~. ~ ~ " V~'~ C ~O C ~D C N G h O ~ O 00 C ~ O r:. U 0 O W Q Q Q U Q U ts~ 0 .!! 0. ~ O .~ O O G C C O O O U 'r rl rl rl r1 rl r1 rl r1 d r I~ cC R OCq RS OCO ~C OCq c0 OCO cC OCq lC OCq cC bC0 ~. o z L a ~ ca ~d C a O ~ ~ 3 Q. a O ~ w Ir ~ a ~' ~ ~ , ~+ a ° R7 y a tC y a LE ` a CC ~ a h C a ~ ~ ~ C A C a '~ V .0 ~~ ~ v°~ vii ~ ~ O ~ w° ~ c+~ M ~p ''O N N N ~ ~ N ~r 0 .~ fV d Q ~ 9 N .~ a. C "' °-° c a~ ~ E V W 1~ W ~ ,,, 3 ~r N w C "~ ~U c ~ cv p„ ,C N N r 4. V U ~_ V ~~ ~~ V rl .. w $; V ~~ R h ~ •~ r CC U ~~ .~ .~ 0 0 u a~ ~~ W ~ zH ~w z o° '. w O ~ F U ~a W U F a z 0 F W a O W .°; F ~ a 0 `~ J ww Aw Uw Uw 0 0 0 = U o 0~ o 0 Y v a a v j [~ 00 ~ 00 ~O 00 O~ .ter ? ~ p W W W A A A W U ..7 ~~ s~ ~~ ~~ V cc -moo cc cc ~ _ ' a E oo coo Q~ Qo ~ c v-~ t~ e~ ~O O~ oo ~ oo ~ o~ ~o •~ o0 ., ~05 ob~S ~~ gg " " y o0 00 00 ao r. ao cn M ~. .r r. ~ U a ~ zN z~ z~ z~ c L" R: O ~ P.. -~ ~ a ~ ` O C7 ~ Z 0 ~ C C O V p ° .O °• V] ° ~. C a V ~ C ~ v CO 3 V ~. c .y R 3 r a E c .7 N H e .~ ~~ ~~ ~U ~ ~ V H ~ b Z ~ w 8 U N cya N ,~ O R; 'O C ~~+ L ~.' c4. ~ r(~{ LC6 V I~"' ~~ EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-fib Chapter 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT This chapter establishes specific policies and criteria for the development of required water, sewer, drainage and utility facilities for the East of 101 Area. The Plan's overall intent is to provide adequate municipal services to serve all development, and to limit development if it would exceed available service capacity. A. Water System Service 1. Water Demand Table 8 shows the projected development, usage rates and water demand of the Area Plan at buildout. The land use categories of the Area Plan would have a wide range in per-square-foot water usage. This is especially true when considering processing usage for the biotech industry. The usage rates used in the table are intended to be averages of the varying uses allowed in each category. Encouraged by drought conditions and the economics of water usage, older commercial and industrial water users have been and will continue to restructure to more efficiently use water. The California Water Service Company (CWSC) provides water service in the East of 101 Area. Forecasts, which use current water demand rates, estimate that the CWSC has adequate water supply to meet the increased water demand that would be created by the allowed development under the East of 101 Area Plan. However, the increased water demand would be more than that estimated by CWSC for their South San Francisco District. Table 8 shows the CWSC's projected increased in water demand in the South San Francisco District through 2010 by land use categories. The CWSC estimates are based on ABAG growth projections. The last column of the table shows the additional demand created by the Area Plan not foreseen by the CWSC. The excess demand would use approximately 18 percent of the surplus supply of 10,100 acre-feet projected for the Peninsula districts of South San Francisco, San Carlos, San Mateo and the Bear Gulch areas based on 2010 projections with similar assumptions. V-67 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Table 8 INCREASED WATER DEMAND OF THE AREA PLAN Potential Estimated Development Usage Rate Projected Demand CWSC Area Projections Surplus Land Use (Sg.Ft.) GPDe Unitb GPDe Ac-Ft/Yr` (Ac-Ft,JYr) Used Commercial 5,620,000 150 1,000 SF 843,000 942 80 362 Light Industrial 1,523,000 70 1,000 SF 106,610 119 Planned 6,208,000 200 1,000 SF 1,241,000 1,387 54 1,452 Industrial Residential - 220 dwelling -- 470 (470) unit Total 13,351,000 -- 2,190,610 2,448 604 1,844 a Gallons per day. Water demand rates have been estimated by Wilsey & Ham based on published rates from various sources and professional experience. b Basis for GPD. c Acre-feet per year. 2. Water Lines Policy PF-1. The City shall ensure provision of an adequate water supply to meet the needs of development in the East of 101 Area in a timely manner. Water lines in the East of 101 Area would generally be adequate to serve new development allowed under the Area Plan. 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 GPM fire flow requirement and use demands for the land uses planned for the area. However, one line would need to be replaced. The 12-inch main which connects from the San Francisco Water Department water system on Sierra Point in Brisbane to Oyster Point Boulevard should be replaced with a 16-inch main in a timely manner to accommodate future development in the East of 101 Area. While this existing 12-inch steel main is adequate to serve existing demand, it is in poor condition and will need to be increased to a 16-inch diameter to serve any significant new developments within the East of 101 V-68 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Table 9 CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF NEW WATER MAIN Item Description Cost > Bore and Case under Railroad 100 feet at $300 per foot $30,000 16-inch Water Main 1,700 feet at $60 per foot $102,000 Design and Inspection @ 12% fee $16,000 Contingency @ 15 percent $22,000 State and Federal Tax @ 33% $56,000 Total $226,000 Area. The need to replace this line was identified and required as part of the Shearwater Project approval. The current 12-inch line is within the Caltrans right-of--way. Due to space limitations within the right-of-way, a parallel line within the Caltrans right-of- way will probably not be practical. Thus, the new line will probably have to be constructed on the Shearwater site. However, it is expected that replacement of the line will be needed prior to development of this property. The probable cost for constructing this line is approximately $226,000 as shown in Table 9. The estimate does not include any right-of-way costs. Detailed right-of--way alignment and acquisition would need to be arranged with the property owner. This improvement should be closely coordinated with the California Water Service Company. Since this improvement will benefit all new development, some means of cost sharing such as a benefit district connection fee seems appropriate. 3. Water Conservation Since the Bay Area is subject to drought, water conservation features should be included in all new development projects. Policy PF-7 could result in a reduced water demand due to use of recycled water in large projects. In addition, the following policy applies throughout the area: Policy PF-2. Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be installed as part of all new developments in the area. V-69 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT B. Sanitary Sewer System Sanitary sewer service can be analyzed in two components: collection capacity and treatment capacity. Policy PF-3 addresses collection capacity, while Policies PF-4, PF-5 and PF-6 address treatment capacity. The increased demand in wastewater treatment resulting from allowed development under the Area Plan is shown in Table 10. 1. Sewage Collection The sanitary sewer lines in the East of 101 Area have the capacity to handle expected increases in flows from the allowed development of the East of 101 Area Plan. However, there has been some subsidence of sewer lines in the area, which has lowered their capacity, and Pump Station 4 has some reliability problems. Policy PF-3. The City shall develop a program of sewage collection system improvements to reconstruct subsiding sewer lines, provide adequate pump station capacity, and make other necessary sewage collection system improvements in the East of 101 Area. Improvements shall be completed in a timely manner to meet demands created by new development. a. Subsiding Sewer Lines. The subsidence of the sewer lines in Harbor Way and East Harris has reduced their capacity and they need to be reconstructed prior to adding significant increased flows. The most significant of the sewer reconstruction should occur on Harbor Way, the 1,400 linear feet between East Grand Avenue and East Harris Avenue. This 21-inch sewer main serves all of the East of 101 Area north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and all the area east of Littlefield Avenue. Most of the planned growth in the East of 101 Area is served by this line. The City's estimated cost for this section of reconstruction is $400,000. The City is considering including this project as a sewer fund project in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for construction in the 1996-98 fiscal years. If significant development occurs within the service area of this trunk main prior to this date, reconstruction may need to occur sooner. The second section of sewer main that needs reconstruction is the 900 linear feet of the 8-inch main in Harbor Way between Utah Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. This section of main services the area north of Colma Creek, east of South Airport Boulevard and south of Mitchell Avenue. This service area is V-70 AUGUST 1993 FAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Table 10 INCREASED SANITARY SEWER FLOW OF THE AREA PLAN Area Plan Estimated Flow Rate Projected Land Use Potential Growth (Sq.Ft) GPDB Unitb Newbemand (MGD)~ Commercial 5,620,000 120 1,000 SF 0.67 Light Industrial 1,523,000 50 1,000 SF 0.08 Planned Industrial 6,208,000 160 1,000 SF 0.99 Total 10,551,000 - -- 1.74 a Gallons per day. Flow rates have been estimated by Wilsey & Ham based on professional experience and published rates, including those from Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. b Basis for GPD. c Million gallons per day. much smaller with fewer vacant parcels that could be developed. The City's estimated cost for this section is $60,000 and it is tentatively being considered for construction in the CIP for fiscal year 1995-96. The remaining section of subsidence is the 700 feet of 8-inch main at East Harris Avenue. This line provides only local service to those properties fronting East Harris Avenue, thus it has little significance to the East of 101 Area. This $60,000 project is tentatively scheduled for construction in fiscal year 1995-96. b. Pump Station Number 4. As discussed in the Existing Condition Report, Pump Station Number 4 needs to be upgraded to improve reliability, and upgrading should occur prior to any significant increases in flow. New projects over 100,000 square feet could create significant flows depending upon the nature of the proposed development. This pump station serves all of the East of 101 Area north of Colma Creek and east of South Airport Boulevard, so the upgrade is critical to serving the proposed growth under the Area Plan. The City is tentatively considering the upgrade of this pump station as a sewer fund project in their CIP for the fiscal year 1995-96, but upgrade may be needed sooner if significant growth occurs prior to that. The estimated cost for upgrading this pump station is $500,000. V-71 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 2. Sewage Treatment The sanitary sewer flow rates used in Table 10 are averages of the potential uses allowed in each land use categories. The flow rates could differ significantly, depending on the actual projects developed. This would be especially true if significant amounts of biotech pharmaceutical manufacturing occurs without recycling. The peak flow during the day will also vary for each land use category which will have an impact on treatment capacity. The increased sanitary sewer flow of 1.74 mgd, when added to the 9.18 mgd already foreseen in the City and documented in the Existing Conditions Report results in a total treatment demand of 10.92 mgd. It is possible that test results will show that the sewage plant's treatment capacity is less than the total treatment demand of 10.92 mgd. If this occurs, then the City will develop a program to ensure funding and construction of needed plant improvements in a timely manner, as specified in Policy PF-6. Policy PF-4. The City shall work with the City of San Bruno to ensure that the Wastewater Treatment Plant adequately provides for development in the East of 101 Area, and the rest of the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. Necessary upgrades shall continue to be parts of the Capital Improvements Program as they are required. The City of South San Francisco operates the Wastewater Treatment Plant which also serves San Bruno and parts of Daly City and Colma. The City has an on-going program to rehabilitate and upgrade components of the plant. This program is needed to maintain current operations and to improve treatment to meet current water quality requirements for discharge. The City's tentative Capital Improvements Program (CIP) allocates $3.14 million to be spent in the next five years on the disinfection system, instrumentation and controls, administration building, vacuator odor and noise controls, and planning and design for further plant upgrades. These improvements are needed to maintain current treatment for current flows, but will not increase plant capacity. Policy PF-5. The City of South San Francisco shall complete the test and analysis planned for summer 1993 and fiscal year 1993-1994 to determine the Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity. V-72 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT When the treatment plant was constructed in the early 1970s, its theoretical design capacity was 13 million gallons per day (mgd) for an average dry weather day. The current plant capacity could be significantly lower than the 13 mgd, but there is no accurate estimate of the current capacity. In order to better schedule and fund plant improvements for planned growth, the City is conducting several tests to more accurately determine the plant's capacity. The results of the plant capacity testing will be available from the City Clerk or the Engineering Department in late August or early September. Plant capacity is determined by two components, the biological capacity and the hydraulic capacity. To accurately determine the biological capacity, a plant optimization study should be conducted, which will analyze the oxygen transfer rate, suspended solids level, sludge blanket and RAS rates coupled with the impact of taking clarifiers on and off line. A full test of biological capacity requires an extensive field analysis that would take approximately 4 months and cost $85,000. This study is tentatively included in the City's CIP for the fiscal year 1993-94. Policy PF-6. In order that the treatment plant does not become a limiting factor to development in the East of 101 Area or elsewhere within the City, a plant expansion plan, including a schedule and funding program, shall be adopted by the City. Plant capacity expansion shall be completed prior to development that would require expanded treatment capacity. The City has identified $3.9 million in plant improvements that are not scheduled to be constructed within the next five years due to budget limitations. Improvements that would help to increase plant capacity and reliability are summarized in Table 11, and are listed below. a. Aeration Tank Number 7. This tank needs to be replaced to appropriately maintain discharge requirements. The current clean up and abatement order imposed on the plant by the State was due to a failure in Aeration Basin Number 7. While there are operating procedures to bypass the aeration basin and maintain discharge requirements, these procedures are effective only for short periods of time. As flows approach the capacity of the plant, the reliability of this aeration basin will become more critical. V-73 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Table 11 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SEWER FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (1993 Dollars) Item Cost New System for Aeration Tank Number 7 (or separation upgrade at $262,200) $706,000 Rehabilitation Digester Number 3 $805,000 Headwork Odor Control $591,000 Pavement Rehabilitation $250,000 New Final Clarifier $1,560,000 Total X3,912,200 b. New Final Clarifier. The addition of a new final clarifier is the only improvement which is expected to add significant capacity to the plant. Its projected cost is $1.56 million. The addition of a new final clarifier would require additional land for the treatment plant. While no preliminary study or design concept has been made, it appears that the adjacent vacant property at the southeast corner of the plant would be a logical site for the expansion. c. Water Recycling. In addition to the above treatment plant improvements, the City tentative CIP contains $60,000 for a study next year to determine the feasibility of providing recycled water to the area. The primary use of the recycled water would most likely be landscape irrigation. The recycled water use could have a significant impact on water demand. 3. Wastewater Treatment Demand Reduction Policy PF-7. Projects in the East of 101 Area that would generate large quantities of wastewater shall be required to lower their wastewater treatment needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, gray water irrigation and similar programs where feasible. Table 10 shows expected wastewater generation rates for various uses. If a new facility would exceed these expected rates, it should include alternative technologies such as those listed above to reduce wastewater flows as much as V-74 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT possible. Industries that are likely to require such technologies include cleaners, food processors and pharmaceutical manufacturers. C. Storm Drainage 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. Thus, any redevelopment of existing development will generally not increase runoff. The development of the larger vacant parcels will have the most potential impacts in regard to increased drainage runoff. Policy PF-8. Specific development proposals in the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated individually to determine drainage requirements. Of special concern are the Shearwater site and properties west of Colma Creek. Most developments will be able to connect to existing drainage lines or drain directly to the Bay or Colma Creek. However, there are several areas within the East of 101 Area of special drainage concern. These include the Shearwater site and properties west of the Colma Creek (drainage areas 3, 4 and 5 in Figure 47 of the Existing Conditions Report). Conditions for new development will depend on the specific development proposals for each site. According to the Federal FIRM maps, much of the Shearwater site is currently at a low elevation which places it within the 100-year flood plain. To remove the site from the 100 year plain, any development on this property would need to be graded so that the improvements meet the County and FEMA requirements for flood elevations. Storm drain improvements on the Shearwater site should be designed to not only provide .drainage for the site itself, but also provide for the development of the northern portion of the Gateway project. The area west of Colma Creek and north of the navigable slough (drainage areas 3, 4 & 5 in Figure 47 of the Existing Conditions Report) is also in the 100-year flood plain. The flooding in this area are due mostly to high tides in conjunction with major storms. The drainage system within these areas is independent of the remainder of the East of 101 Area. Since this area contains little of the new proposed growth, the proposed land use plans will have little impact on the drainage in this area. V-75 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Policy PF-9. All development in the East of 101 Area shall comply with the NPDES discharge program. Developments over 5 acres in size shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the NPDES, which may require inclusion of permanent on-site treatment of stormwater from parking areas. Policy PF-10. The City shall require all new developments to have appropriate water quality control devises. Policy PF-11. During the rainy season, developers shall be required to place appropriate erosion control devices, such as silt fences, hay bales, etc. during construction activities to minimize the amount of silt directly entering the Bay or other wetlands. Industrial and commercial development could degrade water quality through industrial pollutant discharges. Indirect degradation of surface water quality could affect fish and wildlife species in local water bodies. To combat this problem, San Mateo County and the cities within the County are preparing a Best Management Practices plan to control pollutants in their storm water system. Compliance with the permit requirements for non-point source stormwater discharge under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) also requires the property owner of all construction projects over 5 acres in size to obtain a storm water discharge permit. To date, these permits have dealt primarily with operating and educational programs to control the source of pollutants. However, as these permit programs mature, the Best Management Practices are likely to include permanent on-site treatment of stormwater from parking areas. In addition, the City may require additional water quality control devices for potentially polluting uses. For example, three compartment oil separators may be required for facilities that handle gas and oil. All new development may also be required to provide appropriate on-site treatment facilities. D. Utilities Telephone service is provided to the East of 101 Area by Pacific Bell. Gas and electric services are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. These companies are private utility companies operating under the rules and V-76 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT regulation of the State Public Utilities Commission. A brief discussion of their existing facilities and service limitations is contained in the Existing Conditions Report. As public utility companies, these companies will provide the services that are needed for any planned growth within the East of 101 Area under the rules and regulations of the Public Utilities Commission. The following policy will ensure provision of adequate utility service. Policy PF-12. Utility companies shall be provided early notification for any proposed project that could have an unusual requirement for gas, electric, or telephone services. V-77 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-7g Chapter 7 RECREATION ELEMENT ^ ^ This chapter outlines the policies and programs which are intended to create and enhance the recreation opportunities in the East of 101 Area. Improvements to be made by the City of South San Francisco in conjunction with the implementation of the following policies are shown on Figure 6. Policy RE-1. Marina and shoreline oriented uses shall be encouraged along the bay front. Coastal uses shall be concentrated in the Coastal Commercial land use category, which includes the Oyster Point and Oyster Cove Marinas, and the combined Coastal Commercial/Planned Industrial land use category established on the Fuller-O'Brian site. Policy RE-2. Land owners undertaking development projects on properties with shoreline frontage shall be required to enter into development agreements, record deed restrictions, and/or dedicate development rights to fulfill the City's and BCDC's requirements for shoreline and open space development. Policy RE-3. San Francisco Bay Trail improvements shall be required of new developments and maintained in an appropriate manner by the land owner. The area within 100 feet of the mean high tide line and within BCDC jurisdiction must be landscaped and have access provided as part of any private or public developments. These improvements shall include, but not be limited to, paving of a public access trail, appropriate landscaping of the trail area, identification, directional, and informational signs, vista points, benches, and trash containers. All development shall be required to be designed in an environmentally sensitive manner, including the use of native vegetation and by shielding lights to reduce glare in the vicinity of the bay trail. In addition, parking is to be provided for Bay Trail users in a convenient location within proposed development, and designated as such. V-79 LEGEND ~ ~ i----~ Existing Bay Trail, ~'' ~ ~ ~ No Improvements needed -;•-' ~~ Private Bay Trail ) j" ~~ ,~ Improvements _./ r i~ ^ ^ ^ City-Sponsored Bay Trail ~• J % ~ , ,~ Improvements --~~" .,_ v i , ~~- W,~ ~ ~ ~1 Pedestrian Bridge ~ M' , ,~ 1 ,~ ~ New Trailhead Park ~~,;Z-- ' >,' fir'' - ~, ~'` =_ ~~._ } ~, _ ~ ~~~ }~ ~ Improvements to Trailhead Park ~,'~ ~~ i , ,.~ _ ,~„~., s« - - ~, o ~ Picnic Tables and Fish ~ --~ ~ ~„ ~ ' Cleaning Stations ~~ ~ `~____~. -'^~.~_" ' ~ _,~ Oyster Point Mauna Park: ~ % "~ r,, \ barbecues, picnic tables, and ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ - ~ '' ~ '~ r v - ~, ". additional recreation ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~`~ oppomulities %' ~~ , ~`-~ ~ ~ ~,- Airport Vista Point :~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ., ~~~~ ~ ~ ,'rte ~~ Colma Creek Linear Park ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ; ~ .,~~ ,/i ,, v ;, ,:,~ ~ ~ tr ~ , "°^" ~'-~ r~~ 'f~ __ ICI. _ ~ 1''F_-' ~ ~ r ~N r ~ ~ `. ` { \ ~ d J ~ ' ' e'', ~I ~.. ~L ~ - ,. ~ I ~ d it ~ _.1 J' '. I --~ L i.. ` f ~ ' ~ J' k . _ ~.~ _ 1 _..... I ii ~ "_ __ ~ ~ -. _~ 1~~~ ~ ~ ~ I ll_ { ~~'~ l l ~ If i I~~ ~;~ _ __~ ~ ~ {I (~ - " . _ _... _. 1 ~~ { rIi {f~ IFt 7{ ~ `~ I I 4! ` ~ ~ - ~ , I _ , { t l ~ ~ ~ ~ g~' , $ H I I i ,, ~~ ~ ~:~ = ,~i '_~ I~ ,~ l , ~ , , T k ~^^a^oo y ~ 1 ! R ~ ~ Q I... ~~' ~ ~/~ ~'9-" ~:. ~~ ~"1, `~, S C A L E 1'.1800' o ~ I~ a~ EAST OF 101 ~ AREA PLAN ~ City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 6 Recreation Improvements AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT Policy RE-4. Commercial developers in the East of 101 Area shall be required to either pay park in-lieu fees or dedicate park land based on a formula developed by the City which estimates the demand for park and recreational facilities generated by-the expected employment of projects. Though park facilities are currently required for residential developments, employment centers also create a demand for recreational opportunities. Facilities such as the Bay Trail and the Oyster Point Marina provide recreation opportunities for employees in the area during lunches and breaks. These facilities must be appropriately maintained and improved. The demand and cost for these facilities shall be partially provided for by commercial project developers. Policy RE-5. The City shall work to provide recreational improvements in the East of 101 Area to meet the needs of Area employees and visitors, and to provide improved access to San Francisco Bay for residents of the City and the region. Improvements may be made by private developers or with funds collected by the City. The City's program of improvements should include the following: • Bay Trail improvements south of Colma Creek along the City-owned property known as the "fingers", along the Wastewater Treatment Plant property, and along North Access Road. • Trail improvements connecting the shoreline of the Oyster Cove development with the Oyster Point Marina Park. • Improvements to the existing trail along the Edgewater and Diodati Business Parks which is currently in a state of disrepair. • A pedestrian bridge at the mouth of Colma Creek connecting the south bank to the north bank and providing for a continuous Bay Trail. • Enhancement of Colma Creek with a continuous pedestrian trail and native vegetation to develop a recreation and open space amenity in keeping with the City's Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. • Improvements to the trailhead park at the terminus of Haskins Way, as recommended in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. This trailhead park should contain parking for 50 vehicles, restrooms, and. picnic facilities, along with appropriate landscaping. V-81 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 Table 12 PUBLIC COSTS OF RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS Improvement Cost Provide Bay Trail improvements south of Colma Creek, $100,000 including trail improvements along the City awned property known as the "fingers", along. the Wastewater Treatment Plan property, along North Access Road, along the Edgewater and Diodati properties, and through the United Parcel Service property (approx. 10,000' @ $10 a foot) Construction of a pedestrian bridge at the mouth of the Colma $80,000 Creek, connecting the Bay Trail of the Wastewater Treatment Plant property and the Edgewater and Diodati properties Fish cleaning stations and picnic tables at the Oyster Point $15,000 Marina Pier and Point San Bruno Barbecue facilities, additional picnic tables, and volleyball or $30,000 similar recreation opportunity provided at the Oyster Point Park Improvements to the Trailhead Park at Haskins Way $SSO,000a Trailhead Park at the City owned "fingers" $550,000$ Colma Creek Linear Park Improvements $1,000,OOOa Based on cost estimates in the City of South San Francisco Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan, 1990. • A trailhead park on the unused City-owned property where land fingers currently exist. This trailhead park should contain parking, restrooms, and picnic facilities, along with appropriate landscaping. • Picnicking and barbecue facilities and increased recreation facilities such as a volleyball court at Oyster Point Park. • Fish cleaning stations and picnic tables at the Oyster Point Marina Pier arid Point San Bruno. • A vista point for observing the Bay and Airport operations on the point in the south corner of the East of 101 Area. This vista point would serve as a terminus to the Bay-shore trail in this area, since the trail cannot enter Airport property. Linkage to the Bay Trail south of the Airport will be provided on a sidewalk along the south leg of North Access Road, which will join South Airport Boulevard to the Bay Trail in the East of 101 Area. V-82 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT Costs for these improvements are shown in Table 12, and their financing is discussed in Chapter 12. Maintenance for listed facilities on private property would generally be funded by property owners where agreements to that effect exist. Improvements on public property would be maintained with City General Fund revenues, which would increase with expanded development in the area. V-83 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-~ Chapter 8 DESIGN ELEMENT This element of the Plan will be published in late August 1993. V-85 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN DESIGN ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-$( Chapter 9 NOISE ELEMENT The following policies will provide acceptable acoustical environments for the land uses anticipated under the East of 101 Area Plan. Criteria are given for both the control of noise generated by individual aircraft flyovers and for the average noise level. The criteria for average noise levels are in terms of the daytime hourly average noise level (Ley) for commercial and industrial activities and in terms of community noise equivalent noise level (CNEL) for hotels. Because only the quieter Stage 3 aircraft will be allowed to take off and land at San Francisco International Airport by 2000, the noise generated by the loudest Stage 3 aircraft flying the Shoreline Departure Route, which goes over the East of 101 Area, is to be used as the design maximum noise level for designing buildings to provide acceptable interior noise environments. Development completed prior to 2000 would experience higher noise levels until Stage 2 aircraft are phased out, but this is not considered significant due to the relatively short time period involved. For purposes of design, the maximum exterior instantaneous noise level generated by an aircraft flyover is assumed to be 88 dBA south of Colma Creek, 87 dBA between Colma Creek and Oyster Point Boulevard, and 84 dBA north of Oyster Point Boulevard. The noise attenuation required by the following policies will generally be provided by the individual building components (roof, wall, doors, windows, etc.). Generally, where less than 30 dBA of noise reduction is required, standard construction will suffice. Where 30 to 35 dBA of noise reduction is required, sound-rated windows may be necessary. The noise reduction required of the buildings in the East of 101 Area is not excessive and will be relatively easy to provide, and should not result in any excessive construction costs. Policy NO-1. Hotels in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so that the calculated single-event noise level due to an aircraft flyover does not exceed 55 dBA in hotel rooms, and the CNEL does not exceed 45 dBA. V-87 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 NOISE ELEMENT The Planned Commercial land use category allows hotel, office and retail uses. Generally, these uses are proposed adjacent to Highway 101, South Airport Boulevard, and the railroad. The average noise level in this area is dominated by traffic on local streets and on Highway 101. The highest average noise levels are generated adjacent to Highway 101 where the CNEL reaches 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the right-of-way fence. The maximum instantaneous noise levels in this area are caused by aircraft flyovers. The single-event noise level criterion of 55 dBA for hotel rooms is used in lieu of the State Office of Noise Control recommendation of 50 dBA because hotels are a transient use. Slightly higher noise levels are more acceptable for a transient use than for a permanent residence. Also, the 55 dBA maximum limit is consistent with the FAA recommended criteria for noise levels in sleeping areas. In order to meet the requirements of Policy NO-1, interior noise reduction for hotel uses will need to meet or exceed the minimum levels in Table 13. As shown in the table, the amount of attenuation needed will depend on location, which determines the noise environment in the area. 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, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA. In order to meet the requirements of Policy NO-2, interior noise reduction for office and retail uses will need to meet or exceed the minimum levels in Table 14. As shown in the table, the amount of attenuation needed will depend on location, which determines the noise environment in the area. Policy NO-3. Noise sensitive portions of industrial buildings shall meet the noise requirements for offices in Policy NO-2. In general, higher noise levels are acceptable for industrial uses. However, even within these .uses, there can be requirements for lower noise levels, for example, in a private office portion of an industrial building. Noise level recommendations for office spaces shall be used in the office portion of industrial uses. There are no specific design requirements for warehousing and manufacturing components of industrial uses, although OSHA standards for employee safety would apply. V-88 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN NOISE ELEMENT Table 13 NOISE ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HOTEL USES Location Noise Reduction South of Colma Creek 33 dBA Between Colma Creek and Oyster Point Blvd. 32 dBA North of Oyster Point Blvd. 29 dBA Table 14 NOISE ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL USES Location Noise Reduction Buildings South of Colma Creek, Adjacent to Highway 101 32 dBA All Other Buildings South of Colma Creek 28 dBA Buildings Between Colma Creek and Oyster Point Boulevard, Adjacent to Highway 101 32 dBA All Other Buildings Between Colma Creek and Oyster Point Boulevard 27 dBA Buildings North of Oyster Point Boulevard, Adjacent to Highway 101 32 dBA All Other Buildings North of Oyster Point Boulevard 24 dBA V-89 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN NOISE ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-~ Chapter 10 GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY ELEMENT ^ ^ This chapter provides policies to ensure acceptable protection of people and development from the risks associated with geotechnical hazards in the East of 101 Area. An analysis of the existing geotechnical conditions in the area is included in the Existing Conditions Report. A. Fill Soils A large portion of the East of 101 Area is composed of fill soils, which were placed over wetlands and bay mud during the last century. The quality of fill soils varies, and no data on individual sites' fill is available without site specific investigation. Fill soils can lead to problems with settling and structural displacement. Policy GEO-1. Geotechnical investigations shall be required on a project- by-project basis on sites in areas of fill shown on Figure 10. The geotechnical investigation should determine the extent and depth of fill soils, the length of time fill has been in place, the performance of structures currently supported on the fill, the structural capacity of the on-site soil, and appropriate slopes and surface compaction methods. Cut slopes excavated in fill material will also require evaluation, since they generally slough or fail at shallower angles than cut slopes in native soils. Safe slopes in fill material will depend mainly on the degree of compaction of the fill. Cut slopes in fill should use flatter slopes than cut slopes in native material. Surface compaction of the slope face may also be required to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. Policy GEO-2. Where fill remains under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. V-91 LEGEND ° ° e Fill over Bay Mud (Liquefaction Potential) Q Landfill ` " Other Fill ® Known Former Dump ' qe, ~ , o > °° d ' o. -s-o-~ r'~ oo , ~~,~ ~ / o ~ 9 ~ o o q e ~ 00 00 00 4 ° ° q / 0 / o _ e o o o o ~ ~oA c ? oo a o0 a o~ . s ~.. ~A.t a ~r E f 1~ ,IL ~r >~ ;~~ , f ~ b~ ~ / `, _ ~ " ~~ ~ ~ yr // q ~? y,~ .., f hi ~ r 0 { O° ~ i m,j "~ ~~ ~~ 000 aO.Q. * ~~ ' ~ 3 .. '- Fy ~~i i O O O~O ° A. ~ ~ -r ~ ~`!l, o~ o 0 0 0 ~~ °°~~I~9: F ~ ~m! ~ I i'~,•!- 000°~III i` Q~~ O,O ""NNN777b,• O 00 1 0 0 P' 00 °¢ ~ A_ ° ~~po add0'°~6ddl o o ° o ood ~ I ~ 9 0 0 ° I ° ~`.° q tl ~ I F .... -.. ~ 0 6~ p3.d~ C p ~ I` q O 0 I~,y~ ~ 0' ~° 6 0~1 If _....._ ~ O 0~0 q/ i dd o ~~ P I; _ o ~~ /'. ~ e ~ I ~' ~wr.~ ~'- o o •-~,o { 0 0 ° b`$. ~ 00g0.019`Oi 00- 00 f~°o ~ o~-°,, o~~~{ of o R;yieo d, - o 0 0 o 0 00 • oo o o ~ o e o , ~'eo coq 4 00 ° o c oeo 00 p0o 000.! - ~: 000 00 ~ ~ S~ -- o00 •e o °~W~p ° oo . o.0_ i.d 9 q O ~ °roo ° eo pa s 0e 0o • b °°°..~~~ nnn~~~... eo 0 .: 0 eo . ^ .;a o o ~ ,y . ,; a ,..._. a .. ° _ _ :_ o_o '°~, a a - _ob-a=.':a~.o ° 000 0 'p p oo ,po 00 - t~ ~bp'b o•,o o e~0 c 00 a 00 ~ 00 c oo~~ 00 a 00 a 0 `` 0 0 0 0 o i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F -- ° -0 ° ~~oo Q _"~ , D00 ~' F ea ae o oo ° op ° oo ° oo ° O O°O O°O O°O O°O 'R°O O°O O°O ~ ~ o0 0 od , o0b o00` 0 eo c oo c o0 0o c o0 o~..qe o 0o c o0 e0o 000 000 000 00o d.~o 0 0,0 0 0 0:00 0 ed 0 0 eo 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 oe 0 0~!=~o o~o' ° oo o° \ \ ~~~ S C A L E 1'.1800' v sov Iaav a~a~o' City of Soufh San Francisco ~ / 60 ~ 1 / - o o -Q0°. ee j 00 O 00 / a/ n( 00 O° ~' r OO ° l OO :a ° ° ~ {y O 000 00 A:Q~ ° e0e ° ~° e z,, o '~o ° oo °j ° oo .eo a° 0 oe q° O0q o00 00 00 00 e p 00 ~ ~ t.: T ' ~ 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 ~ ~ (( }} ( y /// ~ 00 C 00 ~ 00 // ~ 4 ... ; 1 1 , / / Ob.O 00.0 O °O ,~ _ . . 1 O, °~ o O -_ -, i _ -- ~ _ . o ~ EAST OF 707. AREA PLAN !I B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S ~~~i o d a o 0 . i ~I~~1 ~ ' ~ 00 o - 0 00 a 00 a 00 O.O. ~/ S ~~ '~~ ,ji!~. ~ a o.Of opo b oo_ r ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ / ' ~ ~ i / ~ \ ~~ O O O ~ O O ~~~ oo e O~ ° oq~oo ~ O~ O~~O O _ S' ~ /' ~ - ~' O ° C / ~, , e~ 0. - .. Y ' -n a °.d o ° 1\_--,'' ~ - ° e ° / - . O 09.;0 Oa~C ~~ _ ° .~ ~ A O~A o e - I O 0.0,0 0 00 0 ~ -_ ~J L _ _ J - ._._ P O Q O G O O C p 0 O q 0 0 0 0 .~ ~A. o o• 0 0 4'~ o p~0 0_ q, 0 6 ° ° ° ~ °- i /_~'_^^~ 0 0 0' ° O 0 b oo o oio-- ~e-o -.eu- qo-. ~o -do oe ee o~ o o o '~ o o a of ~~ e o ` o, 0o d o 0 0 0 ~~ b o 0 0 0 0 .p. o e o 00 q 0'O ee ° oo° 0 0 ° Leo a-e0a'1 0 ° O O ~00 O 0 O# O O O a ~ o e ~ - - O ,J, p o e . ° o ° o-o- ~' o ° o;o '4001 ° ~vo ° o ° oo d_o_ ~b°0.00°000° o0°0e~o°o0 °ood°o ~b°o0.o . ~ ~ 'O o o e e,o o~ ° oe ° eo ° oa °000°000°000 "- p b o o ~o O o i °~o °.en°eo°O~-o°~. .... e~ 0 0 0 0 ,0 p 0 0 00,7 ~ 1`~~00.- 00 Y Odq C 00 ~ °0... '.OOp 00) 000. l o o N p ~° .dY.°o . °o o q ~~\o-O e~ea °bo ~ ° 6 9 J e o . °00 ° O ~`~ O~O QO _ . o ~~- e `` 0 0 o ~"o - 0 , 0, e 0 ~ 0 o°~ 0bo o ~. 00°0 a a' 1` OS FIGURE 10 Fill Areas Requiring Geotechnical Investigation AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY ELEMENT The amount and rate of settlement will depend on the consistency of the fill (how well it was compacted) and the constituent materials of the fill. It will also depend on the length of time since fill placement. If settlement of the fill is considered to be a problem, the structure should be specifically designed to tolerate the settlement, or the foundations should be taken down to a firm bearing layer in the native soils or rock. Piles should be designed for additional loading due to downdrag forces as the landfill settles. Auxiliary development, such as parking lots and utilities, should also be designed to withstand settlement. B. Landfills Prior to the 1970s, public and private landfills were operated in the East of 101 Area to dispose of refuse and to increase the area available for developments. Aerial photographs from the mid-1950s show extensive activity in this regard in the Oyster Point/Point San Bruno area. Private dumping of materials, which is generally less controlled than sanitary landfills, has also occurred in the past in the East of 101 Area. In particular, a cinder dump exists on the Shearwater property. Landfills are also known to have occurred on the Koll property. Former sanitary landfills and dumps in the East of 101 Area represent special geotechnical problems because their settlement is greater and more unpredictable than that of standard fill. Policy GEO-3. Given the extensive use of the area for industrial and waste disposal purposes, investigation both by drilling and by examination of historic aerial photographs shall be conducted by project developers in all fill areas to determine if landfills exist under the site prior to construction. Policy GEO-4. Project developers shall design developments on landfills and dump sites to deal safely with gas produced by the decomposition of the buried garbage. Inorganic soil capping over landfills shall be thick enough that excavation for repair of existing utilities or installation of additional utilities does not penetrate to buried garbage. Policy GEO-5. If hazardous fill, such as garbage organics, is encountered, it shall be appropriately disposed by a project developer during construction. This material shall not be used for either structural fill or grading fill. However, other uses may be possible, such as landscaping around vegetation if V-93 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 the fill has a high organic content. If no acceptable use is found on-site, the hazardous fill should be properly disposed off-site. Policy GEO-6. Where a landfill or dump occurs under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. Unlike fill composed of inorganic soil which will settle in a reasonably predictable fashion (the amount of settlement decreasing with time), landfill with varying proportions of garbage and organic material continues to settle almost indefinitely as the components decompose. Even in fill that was placed under relatively controlled conditions deleterious material, such as pockets of garbage or organics, may also be encountered during excavation. This is to be expected unless the fill operation was monitored by an agency or company that has accepted responsibility for the condition of the fill. C. Slopes Several portions of the East of 101 Area have relatively steep slopes. In addition, new slopes can be created through grading. Policy GEO-7. 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 should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if extending a level area at the tce of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration shall be checked for an adequate factor of safety by a geotechnical engineer. Policy GEO-8. The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a vegetative cover on the slope or by other means. Runoff from paved and other level areas at the top of the slope shall be directed away from the slope. V-94 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY ELEMENT Slopes may become unstable if loading, such as additional fill, is placed at the top of the slope or if material at the toe of the slope is removed. Slopes may also be damaged by erosion if the vegetative cover is removed or if runoff is directed over the slope. Policy GEO-9. Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and grading should be kept to a minimum. The slopes of San Bruno Point Hill may exceed 30 percent grade. The hill is a visually prominent landmark in the East of 101 Area and should be preserved. In addition, the slopes of the hill may have unstable conditions due to their steep grade. Therefore, preservation of the natural landmark should continue, and development shall not encroach upon the slopes of the hillside. D. Liquefaction Some soils can liquify during earthquakes and move as though they were liquids, causing the possible failure of structures built on them. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction during strong ground shaking are loose, clean, fine sands, and silts that are free of clay. In addition, these materials must be below the groundwater table for liquefaction to occur. Recent Bay Mud which predominantly occurs in the area has been mapped by San Mateo County as having variable liquefaction potential. Where liquefaction prone layers underlie sloping ground or abrupt changes in elevation (such as river banks), instability can occur because of sliding along soil layers weakened by the liquefaction. Even very shallow slopes can be affected. Slope failures could damage buildings, utilities and parking areas. Policy GEO-10. In fill areas mapped on Figure 10, a geotechnical investigation to determine the true nature of the subsurface materials and the possible effects of liquefaction shall be conducted by the project developer before development. Policy GEO-11. Development shall be required to mitigate the risk associated with liquefaction. V-95 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 Approaches to meet this policy include the following: A sufficient thickness of firm ground could be provided over the liquefiable layers so that ground rupture cannot occur. Foundation design should incorporate an adequate tolerance to settlement. The loose deposits could be densified by procedures such as vibroflotation or driving timber compaction piles to reduce the likelihood of liquefaction. Piles could be installed into deeper firm ground, thus transferring structural loads below the liquefiable layers. If a piled foundation is proposed for a structure in a liquefaction prone area, the piles should be designed to withstand both seismic loading and the temporary reduction in lateral support due to the liquefied soil layers. Where there is a potential for slope instability, another technique is to create a "seismic dike" of densified material (usually by means of vibroflotation) on three sides of the site, thus containing any liquefied soil and preventing slope failure. In areas where such measures are not economically feasible, development should not be undertaken. E. Groundshaking Historic earthquakes have caused strong ground shaking and damage in the area. The maximum expected groundshaking can create slight damage in specially designed structures and great damage in poorly built structures. This level of groundshaking can result in panel walls being thrown out of frame structures and heavy furniture being overturned. The severity of groundshaking at a location away from the epicenter depends not only on the distance from the epicenter, but also on the degree of consolidation of the earth materials beneath the site. Policy GEO-12. Structural design of buildings and infrastructure shall be conducted according to the Uniform Building Code and appropriate local codes of practice which specify procedures and details to reduce the effects of ground shaking on structures. V-96 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY ELEMENT The severity of ground shaking that will occur in the East of 101 Area during a future earthquake will depend on the proximity and magnitude of the seismic event. The severity can be increased by amplification of the shock waves when passing through layers of soft material such as those that underlie part of the Plan area. However, a building designed to the provisions of the Uniform Building Code will not be subject to catastrophic collapse under most foreseeable seismic events, and will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. F. Faults In addition to strong ground shaking, surface fault rupture may also present a hazard for the East of 101 Area along the Coyote Point Fault zone. Policy GEO-13. Potential faults in the East of 101 Area, including the Coyote Point fault, should be mapped by the City, and appropriate study zones shall be determined based on the mapping results. Policy GEO-14. Within the mapped study zone that results from investigations mandated in Policy GEO-13, fault trenching shall be required on individual development sites where feasible. No habitable construction shall occur within 50 feet of identified faults. Evidence exists for potentially active faults, including the Coyote Point fault, through part of the East of 101 Area. Buildings and infrastructure constructed over a fault may be subjected to damage from fault rupture if the fault is active. Structural damage could be severe and collapse is possible. Utilities could be severed and roadways truncated. The United States Geological Survey will continue its investigation of the Hunters Point and Coyote Point fault zones in September 1993. However, there is no estimate on when the USGS will conclude on the location and activity of the faults. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) has not yet evaluated the fault zones with respect to potential surface displacement, and does not anticipate that such studies will be conducted for at least two years.l Because the State is planning to investigate the fault at an unknown time in the future and because the fault does not seem to pose an 1 Bill Bryant, CDMG, personal communication. V-97 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 GEOTECHNICAL SAFETY ELEMENT immediate threat to human life, State funding for an independent investigation is unavailable. The City of South San Francisco will therefore independently solicit an investigation of the faults of the East of 101 Area. This type of investigation would occur in two phases. The first phase will develop a detailed geologic map of the area. A detailed evaluation of geologic conditions is needed to assess whether suitable deposits that could be used to evaluate the recency of fault activity are present in the area. If feasible, a second phase of detailed subsurface investigations will be conducted to identify the location and activity of specific fault traces, direction and magnitude of past fault displacement, and to establish fault set-back requirements, if appropriate. This type of investigation is usually accomplished through atrench-based study. The cost associated with the first phase of the investigation could be from $10,000 to $15,000. The second phase of the investigation is highly dependent on the actual length of the trench required, duration of work, site access and other consideration. A relatively simple trench investigation could be around $35,000, while more complex investigations could exceed $50,000 depending on the actual conditions encountered and number of trenches required. The City should establish the equivalent of an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone in the area based on the mapping results. Within this zone, individual sites should be checked for the presence of faults. Structures should not be located within a zone extending SO feet on either side of a fault. V-98 Chapter 11 NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT ^ ^ This chapter contains policies to protect. and enhance natural resources in the East of 101 Area. As described in the Existing Conditions Report, the primary natural resources in the East of-101 Area are wetlands and their associated plant and animal species and slopes with native vegetation. A. Natural Resource Policies Policy NR-1. Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive resource lands, the City shall require an applicant to conduct a formal wetlands delineation at the projeM site. The results of the wetlands delineation shall be made available to evaluate project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats. Policy NR-2. The City shall require that developments provide for no net loss of wetland acreages and values. Sensitive wetland resources which could be affected by Plan development include northern coastal salt marsh vegetation, saline emergent wetland wildlife habitat acreage, coastal and valley freshwater marsh vegetation, seasonal wetlands, and fresh emergent wetland wildlife habitat. This habitat is considered sensitive, and its acreage has declined substantially in the region. Areas with known habitat of these types are shown in Figure 11. Some jurisdictional wetland disturbances are currently mitigated under State and federal policies. Disturbance to more than one acre of jurisdictional wetlands can require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). In addition, disturbance to a streambed, channel or canal can require execution of a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFG (1603 permit). These permitting resource agencies have adopted "no net loss" policies for protection of wetlands. V-99 ~ tM LEGEND _. ~ -- ~r~~aa~~r~r.~~i~~i~aaaaa.. ~ -~ SM North Coastal Salt Mazsh ~ FM Coastal and Valley Freshwater Mazsh ~ 0~ SW Seasonal WcQand ~ MF Mud Flats ~ ~~ ^ EST Esturine _ , 1 $ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ `F ! - ` ' . t* _ .i % / ter."' • / . f ~ •{ y . ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ px q.. ~ ~, ~ •C~~ ~ Y ~ ~ ? t l ` 1 "^n .. ,. ~' s j' ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ .' - ul / `q_ ~,- _ _° -- ~t ~ ' ~-- -.-~- - - ~ --- _ + ~ mot. ... _ _~ -_ ~ t 1 - - -- .~~ - ~ _ _ 's~'' _ - -- -- --- J Note: The majority of the pproject area consists of Urban 1labitat (UR6) and same Annual Grassland Habitat (AGS) occumng in open (iclds. S C A L E 1'.1800' a soa fooo• 2nar EAST OF 1~1 AREAPLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 11 Sensitive Biological Resources AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT While specific projects affecting one or more acres of wetlands within the Plan area would be subject to USFWS and CDFG mitigation requirements, and proposed streambed alterations would be subject to CDFG mitigation requirements, individual projects affecting less than one acre of non-streambed wetland would not be subject to site-specific federal mitigation requirements. Particular attention should be paid to these projects, and wetlands delineation and mitigation shall be required by the City. Policy NR-3. Slopes with native vegetation in the East of 101 Area shall be preserved. Slopes in the East of 101 Area which have natural native vegetation should be preserved as an important natural amenity and habitat for wildlife. Slopes which should be preserved include the San Bruno Point Hill, which is an important landmark in the East of 101 Area. Policy NR-4. The City shall ensure the preservation of any sensitive plant and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area. Policy NR-5. Prior to approving construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101 Area, project sponsors shall conduct focused surveys to evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species. Wherever possible, impacts to identified sensitive plant and animal species should be avoided through project redesign or relocation. Policy NR-6. If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a proposed project, the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate mitigation measures. Four sensitive plant species, San Francisco owl's clover, Diablo helianthella, Mission Delores Campion, and wedge-leaved horkelia have the highest potential to occur in the Plan area. Although none are officially listed as rare, threatened or endangered by the State or federal government, they have been designated as Category 2 federal candidate species, and are included on California Native Plant Society (GNPs) List 1B: rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. While habitats in the Plan area are considered marginal for these species and, in the absence of site-specific evaluations, none are expected to occur in the Plan area, the potential for these sensitive species V-101 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT to occur in the Plan area does exist. In addition, several other sensitive plants are known to exist in the region of the Plan. Two sensitive wildlife species are known to exist in the Plan area, while four others have a high potential of occurring within the Plan area. Another 30 wildlife species of special concern are known to exist in the San Francisco Bay region. The two sensitive species known to occur in the Plan area, the San Francisco garter snake and California clapper rail, are listed as endangered by the State and federal government. Specific data concerning current status and distribution at the project site for these two species are lacking. Of the four species with high potential for occurring within the Plan area, the salt-marsh harvest mouse is listed as endangered by the State and federal government, while the Salt marsh vagrant shrew has been designated as a Category 1 federal candidate species, and the Salt marsh common yellowthroat and the San Francisco forktail damsellly have been designated as a Category 2 federal candidate species. The existence of these plant and animal species on a given site cannot be determined at an Area Plan level of detail, so requisite site-specific biological resource evaluations, will be conducted when projects are proposed. The USFWS and CDFG have jurisdiction over rare and endangered species. Should results of requisite seasonal biological field surveys indicate the presence of State or federally listed species which would be subject to "take", consultation with USFWS and CDFG would be required. An "incidental take" permit from USFWS and a "2081 permit" from CDFG would be necessary for a project to proceed. Both agencies would require that impacts to listed species be avoided or reduced to the greatest extent feasible, and both would require specific mitigation to reduce impacts, based on their severity. Protection for candidate species and species of special concern as identified by USFWS and CDFG is afforded under CEQA and NEPA, as well as other wildlife protection legislation. Policy NR-7. New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design: • Shield lights to reduce off-site glare. • Provide buffer areas of at least 100 feet between known sensitive resources and development area. V-102 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas from adjacent land uses. Restrict entry to habitat areas through devises such as fencing, landscaping, or signage. B. Implementation Costs The cost of implementation of the natural resource policies will vary depending on the specific activities undertaken. Such measures could include restoration or creation of sensitive wetlands habitat, acquisition of threatened and endangered species habitat, outplanting and relocation of sensitive plant and wildlife species, and monitoring the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation. Total cost of these efforts will depend on the total acreage to be restored, created, or acquired and the numbers to be outplanted or relocated. Resource agencies often require habitat restoration or compensation ratios of 3:1 or greater, and typically require a three to five year (or greater) monitoring plan. Specific costs for implementation of the policies will depend upon the results of seasonal field surveys and wetlands delineation, resource agency permitting negotiations, and specific project design. As such, the estimates presented below are broad ranges that include the potential costs of measures reasonably expected to be required to mitigate potentially significant impacts to biological resources. The following costs generally apply to natural resource preservation and mitigation programs. • Restoration or creation of wetlands: $50,000 to $300,000 per acre. • Acquisition of wetlands or threatened and endangered species habitat: $10,000 to $100,000 per acre. • Outplanting and relocation of sensitive species: $10,000 to $50,000 per year per acre. • Monitoring of implemented mitigation: $10,000 to $50,000 per year per individual project. V-103 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-104 Chapter 12 FINANCING ELEMENT ^ ^ Full development of the East of 101 Area will require extensive new infrastructure, aswell asvarious public amenities to ensure a safe, healthy, and visually appealing environment for residents, workers, shoppers, and other visitors. The Area Plan outlines the general types of improvements that will be required. However, as the development process gets underway, there will be a need for additional engineering and design studies to establish the details of these improvements. Because of the preliminary nature of these plans, the strategy for financing the specified improvements must also be preliminary at this time. A. Financing Policies No matter what improvements are ultimately constructed as part of the Area Plan buildout, there are several basic policies that should guide future decisions regarding financing mechanisms to be used to pay for each improvement. These policies are intended to form an overall approach to future discussions about both who will pay for improvements, and how sources of revenues will be used. In addition, these policies provide some element of certainty to developers and property owners in terms of what types of facilities and/or fees they will be expected to provide in conjunction with plans for future development within the East of 101 Area. These policies are as follows: Policy FIN-1. Costs of new infrastructure and public amenities shall be borne by both existing and future development. Policy FIN-2. Costs of new infrastructure and public amenities shall be distributed fairly among property owners based on the benefits received from the improvements. Policy FIN-3. Any mechanism used to finance new East of 101 Area improvements shall avoid placing unreasonable cost burdens on individual property owners. V-105 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 FINANCING ELEMENT Policy FIN-4. Ongoing operating and maintenance costs for new East of 101 Area improvements shall be financed through ongoing revenues collected as fees, assesments and taxes generated by future development in the Area. The on-going fiscal impacts of these new operating and maintenance costs is included in the fiscal analysis in Section IV of the Plan Binder. No significant impacts from these costs are expected. Policy FIN-5. All development fees and assessments shall be structured so that they distribute costs equitably among various land uses, and do not serve as a disincentive to uses desired by the City. B. Financing Strategies The following discussion describes each major category of infrastructure or public facility improvement to be made under the Area Plan. A listing of the individual improvements and facilities is shown in Table 15. Amore detailed breakdown of costs for most improvements is included in the chapters in which the improvements are described. For each category, a preferred option for financing construction of the improvements. Where appropriate, alternative financing strategies are also identified. Policy FIN-6. The City shall develop specific financing programs for the improvements listed as more detail on these improvements becomes available but before the need for these improvements arises. 1. Traffic Improvements Various improvements would be constructed in the East of 101 Area to assist and improve the flow of traffic in the Area. This category of improvements includes street widenings, construction of turn lanes, and installation of traffic signals. The preferred method of financing the Oyster Point Boulevard widening is to use tax increment revenues from the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area. Right-of-way for the Oyster Point Boulevard widening would be acquired primarily through developer exactions. V-106 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINANCING ELEMENT Table 15 COSTS OF AREA PLAN IMPROVEMENTS (1993 Dollars) Improvement Cost TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS Oyster Point Boulevard: Widen from two lanes to four from the existing two-lane segment west of Eccles Avenue to the proposed Gull Road $928,000 Littlefield Avenue: Widen from two lanes to four from East Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue. Add northbound right-turn pocket on Littlefield Avenue, and add west bound left-turn pceket on East Grand Avenue $177,000 Install traffic signals at East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue $138,000 Add northbound right-turn pocket on Gateway Boulevard $31,200 Add second through lane from southbound off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard and Southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp $122,600 Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp (scissors) $138,000 Install traffic signals at Produce Avenue and southbound U.S. 101 off- ramp $138,000 Add right-turn lane from eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to Gateway Boulevard $31,200 Restripe southbound left-turn lane of Forbes Boulevard at East Grand Avenue as a shared through/left-turn lane $10,000 Installation of bicycle detection loops at the 9 existing signalized intersections $18,000 SANITARY SEWER LINE IMPROVEMENTS Reconstruction of the 21-inch sanitary sewer line in Harbor Way between East Grand Avenue and East Harris Avenue $400,000 Reconstruction of the 8-inch main in Harbor Way between Utah Avenue and Mitchell Avenue $60,000 Reconstruction of the East Harris Avenue 8-inch main $60,000 Upgrade Pump Station Number 4 $500,000 SANITARY SEWER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS* Completion of the test and analysis to determine Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity $85,000 New system for Aeration Tank Number 7 $706,000 Rehabilitate Digester Number 3 $805,000 Headwork Odor Control $591,000 * Dces not include the ongoing program to rehabilitate components of the treatment plant, including improvements to the disinfection system, instrumentation and controls, administration building, vacuator odor and noise controls, and planning and design of further upgrades which is budgeted for $3,140,000 in the City's tentative Capital Improvements Program. V-107 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINANCING ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 Improvement Cast Pavement Rehabilitation $250,000 New Final Clarifier $1,560,000 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Replacement of the 12-inch water main with a 16-inch water main from the connection point to the San Francisco water system through the Shearwater site to Oyster Point Boulevard $226,000 FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (1) New Fire Department Ladder Truck $500,000 RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS Provide Bay Trail improvements south of Colma Creek, including trail improvements along the City owned property known as the "fingers", along the Wastewater Treatment Plant property, along North Access Road, along the Edgewater and Diodati properties, and through the United Parcel Service property (approx. 10,000' @ $10 a foot) $100,000 Construction of a pedestrian bridge at the mouth of the Colma Creek, connecting the Bay Trail of the Wastewater Treatment Plant property and the Edgewater and Diodati properties $80,000 Fish cleaning stations and picnic tables at the Oyster Point Marina Pier and Point San Bruno $15,000 Barbecue facilities, additional picnic tables, and volleyball or similar recreation opportunity provided at the Oyster Point Park $30,000 Improvements to the Trailhead Park at Haskins Way $550,0008 Trailhead Park at the City owned "fingers" $550,0008 Colma Creek Linear Park improvements $1,000,0008 ENTRIES AND STREETS Oyster. Point Boulevard entry improvements $10,000 Southern South Airport Boulevard and North Access Road entry improvements $10,000 Oyster Point Boulevard streetscape improvements $250,000 East Grand Avenue streetscape improvements $300,000 South Airport Boulevard streetscape improvements $450,000 Forbes Boulevard streetscape improvements $150,000 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Mapping and trench investigation of Coyote Point Fault $45,000 - $100,000+ Based on cost estimated in the City of South San Francisco Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, 1990. V-108 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINANCING ELEMENT The preferred method for financing the remaining traffic improvements is to impose a "traffic improvement fee" which would be collected from new development in the area. In order to collect such a fee from developers, the City Council would have to adopt a separate East of 101 Area "traffic improvement fee" ordinance. The institution of this traffic improvement fee may provide an opportunity for the City to restructure the existing Oyster Point Interchange Assessment. As stated in the Market Conditions Report, this assessment currently presents a disincentive to retail development in the northern portion of the East of 101 Area, since it requires payment of a large sum at the outset of a project and is based on trip generation. 2. Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements The East of 101 Area Plan calls for reconstruction of several East of 101 Area sewer lines. This upgrading of existing sewer lines is necessary to support further development in the area. The City of South San Francisco has already collected a portion of the money required to finance the needed improvements to the 21-inch Harbor Way sewer line which runs between East Grand and East Harris Avenues. The remaining costs of this improvement will be financed through either developer exactions and/or revenue collected through an existing assessment district. Reconstruction of 8-inch sewer mains in Harbor Way and East Harris Avenue have been scheduled in the City of South San Francisco's current Capital Improvement Plan. Financing for these improvements will come from the City's Sewer Fund. The upgrade to Pump Station Number 4 will provide benefits to a limited area, and has been included in the Downtown/Central Redevelopment plan for funding. Construction of this improvement will be financed using tax increment revenues generated in the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Area. 3. Sanitary Sewer Treatment Plant Improvements Further development in the East of 101 Area may require that the City undertake extensive improvements to the existing sewer treatment facilities above and beyond those sewer system improvements already budgeted in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. V-109 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN AUGUST 1993 FINANCING ELEMENT Although required by increased development in the East of 101 Area, most of the sewer treatment improvements listed in Table 11 will result in citywide benefits. For this reason, the City has determined that it is appropriate that most of these improvements be financed through the issuance of sewer revenue bonds. The revenues required to pay off the bonds would be collected through increased rates charged to current and future users of the sewer system. 4. Water System Improvements Water system improvements made necessary by development according to the East of 101 Area Plan consist of upgrading an existing water main which connects to the South San Francisco water system through the Shearwater site to Oyster Point Boulevard. The existing 12-inch main would be replaced with a 16-inch main. These improvements would be performed under the direction of the California Water Company, and would be financed through developer exactions. 5. Fire Protection Equipment A new Fire Department Ladder Truck will be required to serve development in the East of 101 Area and the rest of the City. This new truck will be funded from the City's General Fund since it will serve the entire City. 6. Recreation Improvements The East of 101 Area Plan calls for enhancement of existing Bay shore recreational amenities and development of new amenities in the Area. Improvements to be constructed include trail improvements, picnic areas, park improvements, and construction of a pedestrian bridge. The first source of financing for these improvements will be park in-lieu fees paid by developers of projects in the East of 101 Area, as provided by Policy RE-4. In addition, a Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District will be formed in the East of 101 Area. This assessment district, in addition to providing funds for ongoing maintenance of amenities in the area, can also provide capital for one-time development costs. 7. Entry and Streetscape Improvements This category of improvements includes improvements which would help establish visual "gateways" to the East of 101 Area and also includes landscaping treatments for several key East of 101 Area roadways. V-110 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINANCING ELEMENT The primary source of financing for these improvements will be the proposed Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District. Some funds for these improvements could be raised through collection of "traffic improvement fees" from new East of 101 Area projects. 8. GeotechnicalInvestigation This project includes a detailed evaluation of the geologic conditions to assess whether subsurface investigations could be conducted to identify the location and activity of the Coyote Point Fault. The cost estimate shown in Table 15 includes the subsequent subsurface investigation as described in the Geotechnical Element. This investigation will be funded from the City's General Fund. V-111 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINANCING ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-112 Chapter 13 IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT This chapter outlines what changes the Area Plan assumes as part if its adoption, as well as steps that will be necessary to implement the East of 101 Area Plan such as amendments to the City zoning code and map, and adoption of additional plans for infrastructure planning and financing. A. Area Plan Status 1. City General Plan Superseded With adoption, the East of 101 Area Plan becomes the City of South San Francisco's General Plan for the area of the City east of Highway 101. Current land use categories and policies applicable to the area will be superseded by the Area Plan. Policy IM-1. Adoption of the East of 101 Area Plan represents a Genernl Plan Amendment. The City of South San Francisco shall utilize the East of 101 Area Plan as the General Plan for the East of 101 Area, superseding all elements of the City General Plan except the Housing Element. The City's Housing Element will continue to be effective in the East of 101 Area. Policy IM-2. Amendments to this Area Plan shall be made only by following legally acceptable City procedures for General Plan Amendments. The City will determine any need for amending the Area Plan as development proposals and market forces dictate. Because the Area Plan is the General Plan for the area, the standard General Plan Amendment process must be used. V-113 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT 2. Specific Plans AUGUST 1993 As shown in the policies below, the Area Plan is to be the guiding policy document for the East of 101 Area in all portions of the area except the Gateway and Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan areas. The Shearwater Specific Plan is superseded by the Area Plan. Policy IM-3. The Shearwater Specific Plan shall be superseded by the Fast of 101 Area Plan and is no longer in effect as a land use plan or zoning designation. Policy IM-4. This Area Plan augments the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan. The policies of this Area Plan and the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan will both be effective in the Oyster Point Marina area. No conflicts between these two documents are known to exist, but if any are found, the Specific Plan will govern. Policy IM-5. The Gateway Specific Plan is not affected by this Area Plan. Policy IM-6. New Specific Plans may be adopted for key sites within the Plan area as a means of implementing Plan goals, policies and land use categories. Specific Plans are required to contain all components specified in State law, except that they may incorporate elements of this Area Plan by reference, as appropriate. Policy IM-7. New Specific Plans adopted for properties in the East of 101 Area shall conform with this Area Plan. Specific Plans are intended to function as detailed implementation packages, and not as amendments to the Area Plan. B. Zoning Code Policy IM-8. The City will adopt new zoning implementing the land use categories of this Area Plan, and apply it throughout the Area. The Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial land use categories are similar to those that already exist in the City, so only minor changes to the zoning ordinance will be necessary. New zoning categories will be needed to V-114 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT correspond to the Plan's Light Industrial, Coastal Commercial and Airport Related land use categories. The new zoning will be applied in conformance with the Area Plan land, use map. Particularly, new zoning categories will occur on the Shearwater site, and on the other sites with new land use categories. C. Approval Process For New Development All construction in the East of 101 Area will be required to conform to the provisions of the Area Plan. The following policies will ensure conformance: Policy IM-9. No discretionary review approval including a subdivision map, use permit, or design review permit, and no public improvement, shall be approved in the East of 101 Area until a finding has been made by the City that the proposed project is in substantial compliance with this Area Plan. Policy IM-10. City staff shall review all construction projects requiring a building permit to ensure that they comply with the Design Guidelines and all other Area Plan provisions. Policy IM-11. City staff shall review all construction projects requiring a building permit to ascertain whether fees need to be collected, and shall collect necessary fees prior to issuance of building permits. Policy IM-12. New public and private projects in the East of 101 Area shall require site-specific environmental analysis as stipulated by the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Project and Infrastructure Phasing Appropriate phasing of development and infrastructure improvements under the Area Plan will be important within the East of 101 Area to ensure the adequacy of services and facilities to meet the increased demand created by new development. For this reason, development under the Area Plan should generally follow the following policy: V-115 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 Policy IM-13. Public infrastructure improvements should be implemented as soon as practical, but prior to major new development, in order to offset potential impacts to roadways, sewers, and other facilities and services. Table 16 shows when the circulation, sewer, water and fire protection improvements outlined in the Area Plan will be needed. Need for circulation improvements is based on square footage of new development in specific areas. The addition of these amounts new building areas will trigger the implementation of needed roadway improvements and signalizations. The need for sewer plant improvements will be determined in more detail when the plant capacity analysis is completed. Other improvements are not tied to specific triggers, so they are not included in Table 16. The geotechnical investigation described in Chapter 10 will be implemented by the City as soon as possible, based on the availability of funds. The recreation and entry and street improvements outlined in the Area Plan will be implemented when the City deems appropriate. Financing for improvements is discussed in Chapter 12, Financing Element. V-116 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT Table 16 IMPLEMENTATION OF AREA PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Improvement Implementation 'Trigger TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS Oyster Point Boulevard: Widen from two Any single new development over 10,000 lanes to four from the exsting two-lane square feet in the Oyster Point Marina segment west of Eccles Avenue to the area or completion of Gull Road proposed Gull Road Littlefield Avenue: Widen from two lanes to 300,000 square feet of development on the four from East Grand Avenue to Utah Haskins and/or Fuller-O'Brien sites, or at Avenue. Add northbound right-turn pocket Genetech on Littlefield Avenue, and add west bound left-turn pocket on East Grand Avenue Install traffic signals at East Grand Avenue Any single new development over 10,000 and Littlefield Avenue square feet on the Haskins and/or Fuller- O'Brien sites, or at Genetech Add northbound right-turn pocket on Any single new development over 10,000 Gateway Boulevard square feet within Pointe Grande Business Park or adjacent areas north of East Grand Avenue Add second through lane from southbound 200,000 square feet of development north off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard and of East Grand Avenue Southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard 100,000 square feet of development north and southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp (scissors) of East Grand Avenue or when Oyster Point Boulevard is widened Install traffic signals at Produce Avenue and Any single new development aver 10,000 southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp square feet in the East of 101 Area Add right-turn lane from eastbound Oyster 300,000 square feet of development in the Point Boulevard to Gateway Boulevard Genetech area Restripe southbound left-turn lane of Forbes 200,000 square feet of development in the Boulevard at East Grand Avenue as a shared . Gateway area through/lef[-turn lane Installation of bicycle detection loops at the 9 As the City deems appropriate e~sting signalized intersections. SANITARY SEWER LINE IMPROVEMENTS Reconstruction of the 21-inch sanitary sewer To be completed as a Capital line in Harbor Way between East Grand Improvements project in fiscal year 1997- Avenue and East Harris Avenue 1998, or sooner if the City deems it necessary based on proposed development Reconstruction of the 8-inch main in Harbor To be completed as a Capital Way between Utah Avenue and Mitchell Improvements project in fiscal year 1995- Avenue 1996 Reconstruction of the East Harris Avenue 8- To be completed as a Capital inch main Improvements project in fiscal year 1995- 1996 V-117 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 Improvement Implementatlon''Trigger Upgrade Pump Station Number 4 To be completed as a Capital Improvements project in fiscal year 1995- 1996, or sooner if the City deems it necessary based on proposed development SANITARY SEWER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS Completion of the test and analysis to To be completed as a Capital Improvement determine Wastewater Treatment Plant project in fiscal year 1993-1994 Capacity New system for Aeration Tank Number 7 As determined by test and analysis for plant capacity to be completed in fiscal year 1993-1994 and by continuing operations and maintenance requirements Rehabilitate Digester Number 3 As determined by test and analysis for plant capacity to be completed in fiscal year 1993-1994 and by continuing operations and maintenance requirements Headwork Odor Control As determined by test and anatysis for plant capacity to be completed in fiscal year 1993-1994 and by continuing operations and maintenance requirements Pavement Rehabilitation As determined by test and analysis for plant capacity to be completed in fiscal year 1993-1994 and by continuing operations and maintenance requirements New Final Clarifier As determined by test and analysis for the sewer treatment plant capacity to be completed in fiscal year 1993-1994. If current average daily flows exceed 90 percent of the current capacity, or if the expected flows of the Area Plan exceed the determined capacity, implementation of a plan for plant expansion should occur immediately WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Replacement of the 12-inch water main with a Any single new development over 10,000 16-inch water main from the connection point square feet in the East of 101 Area. to the San Francisco water system through the Shearwater site to Oyster Point Boulevard FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (1) New Fire Ladder Truck As the Fire Department deems necessary based on department service standards V-118 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT E. Other Plans and Programs Detailed plans and programs will be required for area improvements, in conformance with the other elements of this Area Plan. This section summarizes plans and programs required through the Area Plan. 1. Land Use • A program which tracks development and its impacts on roadway and sewage treatment capacity. • A program which encourages the use of the downtown by East of 101 Area employees. 2. Circulation • A program which implements needed circulation improvements as outlined in the Circulation Element as required through future development as shown in Table 16. • A study of the potential relocation of the CalTrain station to an alternate site, including a site on Oyster Point Boulevard on the Shearwater property. • A program of bicycle circulation improvements. Some of these improvements will be implemented through the circulation improvements outlined in Table 16. 3. Public Facilities • A program which implements needed sewage system improvements based on the sewage capacity of the treatment plant and needed improvements to the collection system. • A plant expansion plan including a schedule and funding program. • A program of early notification for public utility companies for proposed projects that could have unusual requirement for gas, electric, or telephone services. 4. Recreation • A program of shoreline improvements for properties which do not expect private improvements. These improvements shall be made when the City deems appropriate. • A program which implements needed park facility improvements. These improvements shall be made when the City deems appropriate. V-119 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 5. Design • A program of streetscape and entry improvements; these improvements shall be made when the City deems appropriate. 6. Geotechnical Safety A program which maps the Coyote Point fault in the East of 101 Area and implements the equivalent of an Alquist-Priolo zone within 50 feet of the fault. This program shall be implemented when the City deems appropriate. V-120 Appendix HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS The City's Housing Element identifies 24 affordable housing sites which may be used to meet its remaining "fair share" housing need of 2,376 units by 1995, as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). One of the sites identified is the Koll site at Sierra Point (Site 19 on Figure 26 of the Housing Element). To maintain consistency with the Area Plan, this site shall be removed from consideration for affordable housing. Noise, land use, and municipal service conflicts related to housing in the East of 101 Area are substantial enough to prohibit the development of housing in the area. These impacts are discussed in more detail in the Environmental Impact Report which accompanies this document. With the omission of the Sierra Point site from the affordable housing stock, the City should still be able to maintain its fair share of affordable housing. The Sierra Point site was identified as having potential for 300 new affordable units on the 10 acre site. When these units are removed, the potential units are reduced to 2,480 on 332 acres, still falling within the projected fair share of affordable units by approximately 100 units. In addition, recent revisions to the Housing Element in association with the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment provide for an approximate 2,000 unit increase in the City's potential housing opportunities. This potential will be effective when the City secures a formal agreement with SamTransBART for the subway construction of the BART extension through the EI Camino Corridor. V-121 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT AUGUST 1993 V-122 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN VI. Draft EIR Originally published August 1993. East of 101 Area Plan EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS ^ ^ 1. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Purpose of the EIR 1 B. Alternatives Analyzed 1 C. EIR Scope 2 D. Report Organization 4 E. Mitigation Monitoring 5 F. Relationship to Future Projects 6 2. SUMMARY 7 A. Project Under Review 7 B. Alternatives to the Project 7 C. Environmentally Superior Alternative 8 D. Significant Impacts 9 E. Significant Unavoidable Impacts 9 F. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 10 G. Summary Tables 10 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 39 A. The East of 101 Area 39 B. The East of 101 Area Plan 40 C. East of 101 Area Plan Alternatives 40 D. 2003 Intermediate Development of Alternatives 48 4. IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 55 A. Policy and Regulations 59 B. Land Use 67 C. Visual and Design Factors 73 D. Population, Employment, and Housing 77 E. Jobs/Housing Balance 83 F. Transportation and Circulation 89 G. Noise 153 H. Hazardous Materials 159 I. Geotechnical Factors 163 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS AUGUST 1993 J. Biological Resources 167 K Infrastructure 173 L. Municipal and Retail Services 183 M. Open Space and Recreation 201 N. Air Quality 205 O. Water Quality 223 P. Cultural Resources 235 5. CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 239 A. Environmentally Superior Alternative 239 B. Growth Inducing Impacts 239 C. Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts 240 D. Short-Term Use vs. Long-Term Productivity 241 E. Significant Irriversible Changes 241 F. Cumulative Impacts 242 Tables 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Directed Growth Alternative 11 2. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative 19 3. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Market-Oriented Alternative 28 4. Comparison of Impacts after Mitigation 37 5. Directed Growth Alternative Land Use Breakdown 43 6. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Land Use Breakdown 44 7. Market Oriented Alternative Land Use Breakdown 45 8. No Project Alternative Land Use Breakdown 47 9. East of 101 Area Plan Alternatives Intermediate Development (2003) 49 10. Trip Generation Rates 91 11. Major Directions of Approach and Departure 93 12. Vehicle Trip Generation by Land Use Alternative 94 13. East of 101 Area Plan Circulation Improvements 101 14. Intersection Levels of Service Directed Growth Alternative Buildout Conditions 102 15. U.S. 101 Peak-Hour Traffic Opertaions Directed Growth Alternative Buildout Conditions 103 16. Intersection Levels of Service Directed Growth Alternative Intermediate Development Level 104 u AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS 17. Intersection Levels of Service Directed Growth Alternative Service Intermediate Development With and Without Area Plan Improvements 105 18. U.S. 101 Peak-Hour Traffic Operations Directed Growth Alternative Intermediate Development Level 106 19. Circulation Improvements Required for the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative (Intermediate Development Level) 122 20. Intersection Levels of Service Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Buildout Conditions 123 21. U.S. 101 Peak-Hour Traffic Operations Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Buildout Conditions 124 22. Intersection Levels of Service Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Intermediate Development Level 125 23. Intersection Levels of Service Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Intermediate Development With and Without Proposed Improvements 126 24. U.S. 101 Peak-Hour Traffic Operations Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Intermediate Development Level 127 25. Circulation Improvements Required for the Market Oriented Alternative (Intermediate Development Level) 136 26. Intersection Levels of Service Market- Oriented Alternative Buildout Conditions 137 27. U.S. 101 Peak-Hour Traffic Operations Market- Oriented Alternative Buildout Conditions 138 28. Intersection Levels of Service Market-Oriented Alternative Intermediate Development 139 29. Intersection Levels of Service Market-Oriented Alternative Intermediate Development Level With and Without Proposed Mitigation 140 30. U.S. 101 Peak Hour Trafhc Operations Market-Oriented Alternative Intermediate Development Level 141 31. Increased Water Demand East of 101 Area Plan Alternatives 174 32. Increased Sanitary Sewer Flow East of 101 Area Plan Alternatives 177 33. Alternative Runoff Coefficients 178 34. Approximate Student Generation 191 35. Pollution SigniFcance Criteria 206 36. Alternative Comparison for Indirect Emissions 206 37. Directed Growth Alternative Indirect Emissions Summary 209 38. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Indirect iii EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS AUGUST 1993 Emissions Summary 215 39. Market Oriented Alternative Indirect Emissions Summary 220 40. Comparison of Water Quality 224 41. Typical Concentrations of Non-Point Source Pollutants in Stormwater 227 42. Estimated Runoff Quantity and Water Quality Directed Growth Alternative 228 43. Estimated Runoff Quantity and Water Quality Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative 231 44. Estimated Runoff Quantity and Water Quality Market Oriented Alternative 232 Figure 1. Major Directions of Approach and Departure 92 2. Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Directed Growth Alternative (AM Peak Hour) 107 3. Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Directed Growth Alternative (PM Peak Hour) 109 4. Year 2003 Intersection Volumes Under Directed Directed Growth Alternative (AM Peak Hour) 111 5. Year 2003 Intersection Volumes Under Directed Directed Growth Alternative (PM Peak Hour) 113 6. Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Planned Commercial Alternative (AM Peak Hour) 115 7. Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Planned Commercial Alternative (PM Peak Hour) 117 8. Year 2003 Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Planned Commercial Alternative (AM Peak Hour) 129 9. Year 2003 Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Planned Commercial Alternative (PM Peak Hour) 131 10. Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Market Oriented Alternative (AM Peak Hour) 143 11. Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Market Oriented Alternative (PM Peak Hour) 145 12. Year 2003 Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Market Oriented Alternative (AM Peak Hour) 147 13. Year 2003 Intersection Volumes Under Buildout of Market Oriented Alternative (PM Peak Hour) 149 lv Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the EIR This is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It report describes the environmental consequences of adoption and implementation of each of three land use alternatives for the proposed East of 101 Area Plan. This assessment is an informational document, intended for review by decision makers, responsible agencies, and the public at large regarding the proposed action and potential consequences of Plan approval on environmental conditions. The EIR also recommends a set of mitigation measures for each alternative, which are designed to avoid or reduce the identified impacts through modification of the Plan or implementation as part of future design and development. The analysis contained in this Environmental Impact Report is not site specific. Future public and private projects which are proposed in the East of 101 Area will require site specific analysis as required under CEQA, as described in Policy IM-12 of the Area Plan. B. Alternatives Analyzed This Draft EIR analyzes four land use alternatives for the East of 101 Area: • The Directed Growth Alternative, which is the preferred alternative that serves as the basis for the Draft Area Plan. • The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. • The Market Oriented Alternative. • The CEQA-required No Project Alternative, in which existing land use regulations would remain in effect in the East of 101 Area. This Draft EIR provides an equal level of assessment for each of the three major land use alternatives. Once the Final EIR is certified by the City, the complete EIR will be sufficient to allow for adoption of any of the three VI-1 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR INTRODUCTION AUGUST 1993 alternatives, or an amalgamation of them, as the basis for the East of 101 Area Plan. As allowed by CEQA, the No Project Alternative is subjected to qualitative review in this EIR, which allows for an understanding of the relative impacts of the preferred alternative and the other alternatives as compared to the status quo. C. EIR Scope The effects of the three alternatives for the proposed Area Plan on the following environmental and community factors are assessed in this report. Assessment of most of these factors is required under CEQA. As noted below, however, some factors have been added by the City of South San Francisco to ensure a complete environmental review record, even though assessment of these factors is not required under CEQA. 1. Policy and Regulations Consistency The alternatives are analyzed for compatibility with City goals, General Plan policies and Specific Plans in the East of 101 Area. 2. Land Use Compatibility Compatibility of the land uses allowed under the alternatives with adjacent and surrounding land uses is analyzed. 3. Visual Impacts The impacts associated with the Plan and the visual environment, including potential conflicts with the views of the San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Mountain. 4. Population, Employment, and Housing Based on the specified land use profiles, area population, housing and employment impacts are identified, including on-site employment and housing and off-site employment generation characteristics based on ABAG multipliers. VI-2 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR INTRODUCTION 5. Jobs/Housing Balance For each of the three alternatives, housing needs are assessed based on expected job growth. The evaluation includes a description of the jobs/employed residents balance for the three alternatives, as well as the housing needs generated by new employment. The alternatives' impact on the fulfillment of City housing objectives is identified, and the relationship of these impacts on City policies is described. 6. Transportation and Circulation The ability of the proposed circulation systems to accommodate the traffic volumes for each alternative is evaluated. Roadway and circulation system improvements needed to mitigate any unacceptable operations are identified. 7. Noise The compatibility of the land use alternatives with the existing and projected noise environment in the area is assessed. Necessary mitigation measures required for each alternative are also identified. 8. Hazardous Materials The presence of hazardous waste and toxics in the East of 101 Area is described, as well as potential impacts from and on the three alternatives. 9. Geotechnical Factors Significant geotechnical risks and impacts associated with the three alternatives are identified. 10. Biological Resources Analysis of the impacts on natural resources in the East of 101 Area includes the identification of the potential direct and cumulative impacts associated with targeted species and special habitats. 11. Infrastructure The impact of development under the three alternatives on existing sewer service, water supply, gas and electric service, and telephone and communications is described and quantified. VI-3 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR INTRODUCTION AUGUST 1993 12. Municipal and Retail Services The impact of development under the three alternatives on fire and police service, emergency medical services, schools, and retail services is described. 13. Open Space and Recreation Effects of development on open space and recreation facilities and resources in the East of 101 Area is described. 14. Air Quality Anticipated local and regional impacts associated with the three alternatives are is evaluated. Air impacts from the alternatives are also evaluated with respect to project consistency with local and regional air quality planning documents. 15. Water Quality Water quality in the East of 101 Area is described, as well as impacts related to the three alternatives. 16. Cultural Resources The alternatives' impacts on known and potential archaeological and historic resources is identified. The market viability and the fiscal impacts to each of the three major alternatives is assessed in the alternatives description in Section IV of this binder. These analyses are not required under CEQA, so they are not included in this EIR. D. Report Organization This Environmental Impact Report is part of a binder which holds this EIR, the Area Plan itself, and background documentation on the Plan. Information in the binder includes a thorough description of the Area Plan alternatives, as well as an exhaustive analysis of existing environmental conditions in the area. The Existing Conditions Report and the descriptions of the alternatives are incorporated into the EIR by reference, and should be consulted for appropriate background information. VI-4 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR INTRODUCTION This EIR is organized as follows: Chapter 2, Summary of Findings, presents a brief summary of the project, a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures, and identification of the environmentally superior alternative. Impacts are identified according to their level of significance both with and without suggested mitigation measures. Chapter 3 summarizes the proposed Area Plan alternatives. The alternatives are described in more detail in Section IV of the Plan Binder. Chapter 4 contains an analysis of each impact category described in Section C above. For each impact category, this report describes the following: • Standards of significance for impact assessment. • Potential impacts of the three major alternatives. • Measures which would mitigate identified impacts of each alternative. • A qualitative discussion of the No Project Alternative. The impact findings are based on existing conditions in the area, which are assessed in the Existing Conditions Report in Section II of the Plan Binder. Chapter 5 contains the required CEQA conclusions regarding the environmentally superior alternative, growth inducement, irreversible impacts, short-term versus long-term productivity, and cumulative impacts. References used in the preparation of the EIR are indicated in footnotes in the EIR and in the Existing Conditions Report in Section II of the Plan Binder. E. Mitigation Monitoring In compliance with State law, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be prepared and adopted for the Area Plan to ensure successful implementation of the required mitigation. The mitigation monitoring program will be included with the Final EIR, and will ensure compliance during project implementation and during the life of the project. The mitigation monitoring program will summarize mitigation measures, specify monitoring and reporting actions, and identify implementing and funding responsibilities. VI-5 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 INTRODUCTION F. Relationship to Future Projects The following Environmental Impact Report provides analysis of the East of 101 Area at a plan level of detail. This report does not address site-specific concerns or impacts. While this EIR may provide useful information for future development projects and could potentially be used in "tiering" Environmental Impact Reports, it should not be solely used in environmental analyses of individual sites. New public and private projects in the East of 101 Area shall require site-specific environmental analyses as stipulated by the Environmental Quality Act. Environmental review of site-specific projects will require review of several agencies which have regulatory and permitting authority over the East of 101 Area. These include the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The East of 101 Area Plan does not in any way limit the requirements or authority of the above agencies. All subsequent site-specific environmental review shall include review by these agencies and their requirements shall be appropriately followed. VI-6 Chapter 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. Project Under Review This Draft Program EIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan has been developed by the City of South San Francisco to recognize the unique quality of the 1,700 acre area of the City east of Highway 101. The Plan will guide development within the Plan area in a manner that improves its image, benefits the community, generates employment, and allows for development within a framework of continued public access to San Francisco Bay. The Area Plan contains goals and policies specifically targeted towards a variety of issues, including land use, design, housing, circulation, noise, geotechnical issues, public facilities, recreation and natural resources, and overall implementation and financing of the Plan. This Draft EIR examines the potential significant adverse impacts of implementation of the proposed Area Plan, and recommends measures to mitigate these impacts. B. Alternatives to the Project CEQA Guidelines require that a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action that could feasibly attain the objectives of the action be described and comparatively evaluated. The Impacts and Mitigation Measures Chapter analyzes the preferred alternative, known as the Directed Growth Alternative, along with the Planned Commercial Alternative, the Market Oriented Alternative, and the No Project alternative. The first three alternatives are subjected to equal levels of analysis, while the No Project Alternative is assessed qualitatively. The identified Environmentally Superior Alternative, as required by CEQA, is the Directed Growth Alternative of the Area Plan. This alternative would VI-7 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS fulfill the goals of the Area Plan and would avoid significant impacts of the other alternatives related to noise exposure, land use conflicts, and school facilities. The No Project Alternative was not selected as the environmentally superior alternative primarily because it would allow a greater density of development in the East of 101 Area. This higher density of development would create additional impacts to traffic, air quality and municipal services. In addition, residential development, which would be allowed in the Planned Commercial land use category, would conflict with the San Francisco International Airport. Each of the alternatives is discussed in detail in Chapter IV, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. In addition, the alternatives and their associated impacts are compared in Table 4. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative Of the alternatives considered, the Directed Growth would generally result in the lowest degree of environmental impacts and is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Through this alternative, potential impacts of the other alternatives related to noise, land use, and schools would be avoided. The Planned Commercial and Market Oriented Alternative have unmitigatable significant impacts related to these issues. All three alternatives would have significant impacts related to air quality and circulation which cannot be avoided. The No Project Alternative was not selected as the environmentally superior alternative primarily because it would allow a greater density of development, thus allowing more impacts to occur with respect to traffic and air quality. Residential development would also be allowed under the current Planned Commercial land use and zoning category. This use could cause impacts to municipal services and conflicts with the San Francisco International Airport. In addition, the Area Plan provides for protection of the East of 101 Area's biological, recreational, and visual resources while increasing opportunities for employment and services for area employees. These improvements would, most likely, not occur without implementation of the East of 101 Area Plan. VI-8 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS D. Significant Impacts Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. CEQA requires in-depth analysis of those environmental factors that are identified as having a potential to be adversely affected by the project. Implementation of the Area Plan has the potential to generate environmental impacts in a number of areas. Impacts in the following areas would be significant for one or more of the three Area Plan alternatives without the implementation of mitigation measures, but would be reduced to a less that significant level if the mitigation measures noted in this report are adopted: • Policy and Regulations • Land Use • Transportation and Circulation • Noise • Hazardous Materials • Municipal and Retail Services • Open Space and Recreation • Air Quality • Cultural Resources E. Significant Unavoidable Impacts The Directed Growth Alternative of the Area Plan would have significant unavoidable impacts on air quality and circulation. The Plan would result in substantial air quality impacts primarily because it consists of land uses which would attract vehicle trips to the area, and would not include planning for high-density, mixed-use, community-oriented development patterns. These types of developments, while favorable from an air quality perspective, could cause impacts with respect to other environmental issues, such as land use and noise. In addition, market conditions could not support high levels of development, as illustrated in the accompanying Market Report. Circulation impacts of the Directed Growth Alternative would be confined to southbound Highway 101 between Oyster Point and Grand Avenue, where Level of Service would reach "F' in the PM Peak hour. VI-9 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AUGUST 1993 The Planned Commercial and Market Oriented Alternatives would have significant unavoidable impacts on land use, noise, and schools. The only feasible way to mitigate against these additional impacts would be to prohibit residential development in the East of 101 Area, as would occur under the preferred Directed Growth Alternative. These alternatives would also have significant unavoidable air quality impacts similar to those of the Directed Growth Alternative. F. Implementation of Mitigation Measures This Draft EIR discusses specific mitigation measures that would be implemented by the City of South San Francisco. The mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR would form the basis of the Mitigation Monitoring Program to be implemented by the City in accordance with State law. The Mitigation Monitoring Program will be published with the Final EIR. G. Summary Tables The following four tables summarize and compare the environmental impacts of the alternatives assessed in this EIR. Information in the tables has been ordered to correspond with environmental issues discussed in Chapter IV, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Tables 1, 2 and 3 list impacts and mitigation measures for each of the three major Area Plan Alternatives. They are arranged in three columns: (1) environmental impacts, (2) mitigation measures, and (3) level of significance after mitigation. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one measure may be required to achieve a less than significant impact. Table 4 compares the impacts associated with each of the four alternatives. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures for the Area Plan alternatives, please refer to Chapter N. VI-10 a~ 1 ~ z ,~ z a ~c„ W O ~~ o~ w O F ~ w F a ~ Q 1~ r, w ~ A O o = G. n. .O ,r~C `° ~ ~ ~ ° W -° ~ ~ u ' ° o ~ o ~ 3 ~~ ~ ~ C ? o "Z d v ~. ~ y ~. V r%~ ~ ('i y y R i D' p 3 ~ :y ~~ c ` ~ ~ c Q3 o a i . ° = C 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~_~ ~ ~' ca y ~ 'C. U W b 7 ~ ~ ~ o C ~ ~ ca ^ o c .~ I.n ~ ~ ' L ' u .~ ~'. ~ U y .O r ,~ N ~ ~ ~ R 'p p C p "y ~ o ~,~' ~ yll y 6J R r / ~ N ~ ~ O ~ C ~ R ;fl :~ C R „, ?~ S~ ~ ~ w N ~ _ `~ ~ R ~' 3G; cU0 ~ ~ p pU ' v C ~ 7 W ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ c h o ~ 3 ~ y ~~ S o d ~ O C~P.i C ~ ~ C ~ y ~ Qr CD y w ~ ~'j 'O ~ 00 l0 ' ~ y ~ Lr' 00 JJ C y ~ ~ •y ~ Z Z 6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ 1r ~ . C C C ~ca .~ V N Z O C C R C~C G ~ W C _ O ~ C ~ '6 ~j ~ ~ " _ y c~ w.. C ~ ~ p p, ~+ ~ C ~ ~ U `. ~' Z 8 y0 O C ~ p S. 3r .O. rr W ~ y N ~ ~ _ LO y ~O ~p ice' R7 ~ r ~ ~ C ~ N ~.+ T C it lQ ~ c c ~ °~' ~ U 'O cv ~' °' . ~ 'C ~ t C ~ O C y ~ c ~ ~~ o r a a~ + . 8 ~, ~ 3 .c a u `" ~ ~ s g ~ . c,~ E ~S ~~ X C N ~ .-. ~ N ~ C LO y ~ j Q, ~ U ~h ~ ~ ~ ~.. H CO LO r? ~ y C (,~ O ~ `~ . L~ ~_0 _ ~ W ~ ~' O C LE tom. cC ~cy~ W Q~ ~ ~ . ~ y Q O C Q V c~Q 'p '~ ~ V W C a w _ ~~ O C a C ~ ' ~ •. o 7 ~~ ° ~ '~ 'p 7 ~ ~ o y N~ y V ~p cQ C C~ O ~ ~ u b '~ C C O. E i.a W u=° Z y a .~ ac ca ..+ h r w ~ ° ~ ~ .~.+ "'~u ~ 'd ~ ~ p ~ ... ,u u h ~ Oy ~ ~, y O C is Q w 'O v y Z ' V ~ ~~.. yc~ y ' O y ~ 3 ~ ~? 'V y ~ ~ v, V °~ .d ~ E °' a o ~~`~ ~ ~ . o ' a" ~ ° °~ E' ~ ~ aEi ~" ~ O ~ R C '6 n, 'O td v ~ ~ L ~ 'G ~ ~ . N y ~ Ca U ~ ,C ~ ~ ~ p~ '~~" d y /d~ CQ Fri V V ~ ~ (~ ~ C w ~ I _ R ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ,o Z ~ ,0 3 8 3 C ~ ' ~ , I.. Q ~ a ~ ~ "a i ~Vj ~ i t b O o0 in , ~ C ~ ~ 9 y y ~ ~ V~ pC' a a~ a,,N~ x a~ oo~ s ~~ a ~W ~o~~~ ~ ~~y ~ z~~ ~ A~ ~~1 C c ~pp Op ~~ L~ ~7r c rr ~~ .~ 5 FQ' .-. a 4~ V v rl Q L~ l^ FA U W a A ~ V +'' o ~ ~ ~ = ~ 3 y ~ U y o ~ ~ h U y ~ ~ ~ 3 O~ x ° r' CO 'y ~ CC ~ ~ ~ ~ g' r ~.__ ~ 7 ~ Uu CO O ~ ~ u O 9u~ 3 ~~ ~ ~ •~ R ~ r c o0 o ~y 3 c ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m o ~~ ~~ c'o 5 •E~R u a~p'Cp~~~_ ~ c v N U A ~ ~ ' o ~ C c ~ ~ ~ ~ O r ~, cv ~, ~~ ;oo °a~io C p p v' ~~ ~i ~ N u ~~ M 8 h N ~~ ~ .0 ~ U ' ' ~ Q, a fcn~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ 0 ~ ~ c o o ~ {.n ~ a~ E ~ ~ ~ f11 n. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' y ~ > ~ 'O .~ T .L o y ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ O • .+ ~.~ ~ N ~ O. ~ 0 y c ~ OD N C y~+ ~ N Z C y N y E C ~ O~ a ~U ~.c aci° ' ~E N =yn o acir o3 ~~ v ~„o= . ~~ u _ ~ ~ '~ ~ o v~ ~ ~ o c v $ c o ~ • ai a i ca ~c Q ~ ~ a~ vW E $.~.a ~~va~ ~y ~~ °'o°o ~°~ "N~a o ~ _ a y c ~ ~ .y C ~ ~ ~-+ v y t A • ~ ~ ~ C ~i N .', ~ ~ ~ U O ~ ~ y O C ° C~ .o u c ~ R 'O v L"' °U3 7 .C ° 3 L c.'~°~ ~ r 3 ~~ ~' •`' ~~0 x 0 ocra > ~ ~ c E ~ 3 c c• r w ~ ~ c ~o~ ~ ~A ' ~ °~ ~ o c cw o~ ~ u h ~ O y ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o W ~ .a g 3 R ~-° ~ ~ c ~ a ~ °~ ~ x °~ a ~ ~ `~ i o ~ ~ 3 o °~ ~ c •~ b ~ h n. a~ O p (a,~ , s E u u pq a~ y ~+ o y c_ Z ~ 7~ ~~ W ~ u ~~ ' r e w a y ~° ~ o y ~ ~,•~~ o w D y ~:: acc~v Oc U c6> ~R ~ L w ~ ~/ ~ ` ~2 ~ ~ O f \ ; ~ V c C 0o ~ z ~ 1~ V ~ ~~( ~ S ~ ` ~ ~ ~ "-' ~/ ~ ~ ~ 'J ~ ~ ~ .~ C~ N1 8 O O ~ ~ ~ 8 C ' ~ Z A OQ F~ Lam. /~~+ ~ L y ~~+ ~'i ~ c ~ U ~ r2 Q~ T VG C C Q~ ~~ om~"" ~ ~ ~ ~ O L. ~ ~ Yi 0 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a CO C~ C C' O ~ `~ Q c R I n ip c N C C N ~ N ~ 7 ~ GO N E Q c ~"~ a o ~ m ~ .. Q V .~. u _ c ~ '~ _ L + Iti .~ R7 Ll ~ ~ U W ~Vl W ~ lC GTr LO .~'+ C.) ~ ~ 1~ U C V c _~ x~ ,~ c~ z ~z ~w O ~~ 0 w~ O ~ F ~ Q~ ~\ w '~ a C Q,' Tn~I v -~ O G~7 H W W x A 0 d~ ~ = p~ t o ,o~ ~ :~ l 3° ~ y p Q on w ao ch ~ M v ~ '0 ~ '7 O W 'C C c~ C ca ~ C cv ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~ 5 ~ .S :; c~a u ~ `~ o ~ o. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' `~ ~ ~ , ~ .> G p C OQ bD 'in tQ G N 7 ~p ~ .G h C C ~ ~ w ~ C C ~ .0 Q. .0 ~ C ca ~ w C y C C ~ ~ O cCO ~ O ~N~++ yyy ~ '~ y C ~ ' 7~ .'~ ~ p ~ ~ • Q ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r. y u 6" Q ~ o' r ~ ~ Q C~ `~ 'v y v O O c c~ ° C.! O ° g g ~ I~r !r a~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ b O ~ Z C v u .fl ~ ,C C a ~ ~' C C a y~ ~'' . N N 7 'fl y - r C R O Z ~ C ~' ? p C~ •~ d ~ O __ F~+ ~ _ ° ~ ~ ? ~ I.n y ~ ~ ~ •~ ° '' ~ ' ~~ ~~r Q ~~a ~ R . C ;~ C ca c p y U ~ ~ .C ~ v~ > V C Q (C ~1 S. Q • hGL` W ~ •r C Oq ' C ~ `~ ~ R + w yyo 'a ~ -°> ~ u$ u O ~ era, ~ ~o Fti Q 3 ~~ Z h W A N ' ° ~ O ~ oo y .C ~ L' ~ C ~ f~ + W C .r ~ ' Jl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ (y ." . N O 4. ~ LO ~Ir ~ . ~~ •fJ C c ~ ~.' ~ ar R ~~~++ L1 C v v ~ .C . C~ v .~ N~ R~ G . w E ' ~w O ~ v~ ~ M .o~ ' ~ NCO a a c° 3~" ~ ~ ~ a i ~' v ~ .o c a c c, z 3 o 3 ~ ~ ~ r o c `" ~ ,o i v a Qy `~. oa n ~, `~ O O p ~ c0 G pq ~~`'.. v ~ _ ~ C U ~4 Z~ V 00 V !C OO L' ~ Q p ~ .--i ,~ L 7 G 7 O ~ N N O eq ~ W B ~ ~ ~ U oz ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ W•y a o ~+ O ~ C h ~" 'b CO y 'o ~ ~ U C7 0 C (c~y~~pj c ty C U ~ a+ O .~ 7 Vi ~ C ~ .C Op Q ~ ~: Q.p ' r Ci y C ~ ~ V 0 ~ ~ ~ W . C ~ S QV ry. ~i V ~ ~ O r1 W p Q ^, v V] '~ R C y O pp w ~ C Q~i ' w L O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ C ~ _ ~ c ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ y m W ~ p ~ r H y W ~ ' '-' ' C y U Z U 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C O O ~ C ~ ~ U ' ~ ~O C O ~ `. 7 Q ~ O z ~ L1r 4 ~ a 7 ~ ,C G .' ~ C p v i Z w r i . ~p ~ ~ ~ A' ~ ~ U O y ~ C ~ • ~ ~ Z. C Z w :: F. r U ~ C) ~ ~ Z H C u ~ 'O ~Y, ~/ ~ '~ c L~~ L~ ra V Q Uw_C7 G7 ~O ~a ~ ~~ ci O O Z c ~ = N Q~~ o ; R ' ~ 3 .. . o . `8. C C w DO a ti 5 zQ .~~ `w C ~ V ~o ~a ~ G~ F rFW V W A Pi _ C O C C ~r ~ ^+ W 4~ C ~„^ ~ ~~y w Z C y w ~ v~ ~ fn ,~,~ p •~ _ '~ p O V y O C C' ,C ~ O F-~ ~ ~p y `~ `drS ~ ~ 'C C. ~1 ~ r~ ~ R bA ~' ~ w i..~ r ,~ ~ Cq cCV O R. v~ Fi yC" ~ C ) ~ cC0 ~ 7 ~Q O am ~ y O ~ R+ ~ O _ C~ w_ C w fA .E W 1r ~ ~' q ~ ~ ~ ~ y Q~ vi y ~ C^ ~ G y ~ 'D ~ ~ 7 ' .~.~ 3j N ~ y U ~ O ~ _ ~ C C a i C • W V R N ' 6) p h 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~.. a C ~ ~ g a R ~ ~ ~ ~ R QI 0 0 V C ~ ~ y ~ w ~ 0 ~ ~ C ~ 3 R OD •,~ ~ ~ Z ..a ~ 'O ~ r~ {.n ° ~ E ~ C g ~ « Z 7 ~ 7 ~ $ ~~ ~ ~ °~ ~ C r C o ~ y C~ u ~ ~ ~ O ~ C O ~ w ~ ~° u ~ 'v u ~ ~ C ~ as ° ~ r a 3 ~ - d~ = 7 ' . ~ 'O ~ "~ oD '/~ ~ :: N O .d ~ N C ~ ~ O ~ u w ~ O C O C 'r ~ ~ C $ ~ y ~' ' ~ type ~ ~ y ~'Q '~ N v h ~C~~pp ~ c ~ v °= o~y~ w~ au_ ~o ~ L ' ~ w 7 ~ y G. ~ N C ~ N LO O ca ' ~ 6' r ` h ~. 8 O .ac '~ H ° ~a ~ C cC 'C ~ C ~ A ~ ~ p°, v ~ •C C ~ O ' O ~ C w Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~' ' -' d ~ .~ ~ ~ O ~ .0 _~ •~ u ~ C C 3 ' ~ wp O N ~ .~ ~ ~ on .~ , LO ~ :~ ~ ,w- C C O c O ,« ~ ~ d ~ ~ y ~ y Q U o ~ ~ C R '~ °" '° ~"° ~ 7 ~' ~ ~ ~ R ~~ o. °. ° ~ E ~~ ~a ~~ ~ ~' ~~~3 ~~ ~sc~ ~~ O ~ t 'O y w0 y C `' C ~ Z . E ~ ~ ~ O d OQ w y~ L D ate. ~ ~ ~ O' ~ Mv R V V {~{~~ C N cC v~ C ~ N V _ 7 C ~ 7~ V~ W ~p y C~ >l a y ~ o.. ~ ca ~ u ~. ~ 3 our ~' ~ ~ o' $. R `O a• w a W ~ c ~ `' .z tea `. ~ ~ ~ . ~ Q w O ce ~ ~j Q 'S ~ L cC Lei ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; i.n ~ C r n .:i ~ TJ m ~ ~ ~ ~ L 'a~ ~ ~ ~ a '~ ~ ` vui u °~ ~ E ~ u'~ w v . ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~'~ Q ~ y ~' v •°: "~ w~ N O '" C c0 w~ O ~. CO ~.. t w ' ~ w O O ~- :: ~" e9 ep O W 7 V 7 w `3 C ' eCO ~ O C `8 ~ c U ~ Z `•~ ~' ca c E V 0 '~ `~ ~n ~ . W E.~ ~'~ ~ „ O y oco d Air ~ , , ~ ~ c_ o~ ~ 0. w ~ ~ C 00 ~ ~ C ~ E ~ ~ w ~ ~ ,o ~ d V ~ ~ W ~ ( ~ ^ ? , ~ ~ c C z E"" O. L y ~ ~ F.y C ~ ' y V ~ y Vi U V ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl U 0 ~ U V O 7 ~ ~~ ( N~ ~ C6 V d ~ a! / ~ ~ V C y ~ ~~ C V V ~ p., ~p ~ p- ~ "~ •O Ir V ~ O ~ v ~ ~ a~ ' ( ~ C C ~ ~ y ._ w ~. v F. Q u .. ~.. v ~ ~ Z ~ ~ O oo C~ a ~ ~; w A' ~ •• 3 ~ v ~, ~ w 'd ~ 'a ~ ~ ~ yy ~ D ~ ,, ss i4 ~~ U CC ~ C ~ v~ , U ~ ~F; t. ^ 'O V ~ cC 7 RI Vi . W CD t U `t~. E 8 cR tq b~ C 1~1 5 v z A z [% w 0 ~.' a ~d M ~~ ~ Q ~ G~ F W a A d o ~ _ y C ~ ~ ~ V1 "' 3 ~~.. ~ ~ U ~ ~ C c ~ ~ C a ~ ~ R ~ : ~ o ~ h N ~ h C '~= ~ v . 0 bA O ~ ~ C ~ v O C v R C ,C y Lr' '~ r.a C y (0 ~ N ~ h C `~ ~ r ~ C CEO ~ .~ .C 'O 'd O ~~ y N R p U C y ~ "" ~ C V +' d ~ .0 C •C ~ p y l0 LY Q ~ ~ ( , ' Q U ~ V ~ ~ R ~ y ~ c ~ w ~ E ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ° ~ p ~, ~ E~ _ a i o C u " R t4 1~1 d C Q ~+ ~ cC O Z _ G cCa C IG ~ V ~ y ~'. 'yr '~ ~ ~ '~ ~ O y ~ ~ 'd L' y .y ~ ~ 0 h s. CC y Vj j ~~ ~"~ ~ y C S C v C ~ ~ ~ w C 1~ ~ a ~ ~° y`'coE `J' ~ _ ~3 ° .+ ~~ ~ ~ , c o " O tom ~' $ ~ '~ u .~ a ~' h a i ~ N C CD U U Y a~ U i ^ . R U „~ . ca a~ v ~ R y ca v r°, v im '~ o ~ ,yc r y ~ ., w ;,a ~E_~ ~ a '~~ ~w '' o '~ p ~ ~ .r E pw ~~ z O~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~~ h ~ ° v .~ w r? v E ~ '~ ~ _ $ M C7 v U . "" .o O ~ C ~ a e y y F1, ~ c0 'O : O G. ~ ~ N " ~ ~ C ~• ~ p~ ~ y xx O. C ~ • • ~ V A ~ ~ ~ v L+ ' ' c. w . ° w a . o ~ . o ~ 4A ~ ~ 0 u• - C ~ ~~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ "'i a R {. a~~~C +++ ~ ~ ~ ~ VJ ~~ r ~ O n Z~ C ~ ~ ~ cy~ v ~ Z O. C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c0 7 'p C L ~ =~ ~ .~ ~ L .~ O ~ A :~ °~ ~ ~, O . ~ p ~ ~ 8 .. f11 o u u. Q, ~ .o Q, ~o °' fl a ca ~ _ . U 3 , h ~ ~ a i ,d C L i"i ~ /~ A 0 /~ I'1 W 3 ~ Z ~ Q O O C W ~ 'n y C is y ~ is C ~" ~ '~-~ c., O C co ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ .~ R c ~ ~ N O ~ 'C7 °° 'E a ~ b ~ a~ ~ R~ a c o ~ ~ ~, c ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 0l ~~~i]] N 7 Q ~ ~ N y5 N d N ~ U ~ ~ ~r C ((% ~~~ y3 ~ ~ f J ~ N~ L. i O ~ ~ N~ 0 C QI N ~ A ~ 3 a ~ o A~ ~ .~L r N 'p r V C N ~ ~ .:: V ~ ce 1.. a' ~ d lV V ~ CC tri ~ ca (L~ ~~„ y ~ L Oq f% C ~ cCC N ~.. y V N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca cn U `~ a ~ a > 'd cCa .~ cv ~ 3 ~ ~ `~ 3 ~ ci . 'o ~ ai w °c ap ~ c ao E c c 5 r~ W O u ~-+ O a> ,,CL1~~~ V H W W A e V ~ ~ Q ~ a ~"' ~ y: n F,,,~ ~ ~ c_v aci ;C O O -~ ~ ~ W O ~ ~ C y y ~ C ,c~ O cv y~~ y ~ U C Ll. ~ y N C ' ~ cp ~~aa O ? y ~ v 5 !~ O d ~~ R,'Q y D w ~ h ~ w O ~ b ~ i. ~ C C y ~ c ~ .r ~ O LO R ""' C ~ c v c • (~ O v . y ~. ( j c ~ V 7 N.r .~ V y U 1~. CC N C~ O C ~ ~ N v v ~ u ca .~w ~~° c c ' ~, y •~ ~r c ~ ~ .C ~ y ~ ~ ~ C y 7 a'•~ y C~ 'G C cQ ~ Q+ w r y ~ f. R bQ ~ ~ ~' ~ h . ~ v O ~ , 6) ~C U ~' O .+ ~ cE ~ ~ 5 y ?+ ~ 0~0 w ` ~ Z ~ C O c (O .~.. ~ ~_ d CC ~ ~ ~ 0 ~" n by ~ 5 ~ + •~ ~ C ~ ° C ~"V y a L>' o U C v ca d ~ v 7 ~ y c C ,cam a~i c~ra c ~ ~ OD ~ c f" y 'ca ~, ~ w- g c ~ c+i c Q ~ ~ c "''L„ CC ~? ~ w y v N L' C zr ~ ~w ° ~ y a ~ ~ ~~'~° V ~a° ,",° ~ '~ ~ U ~ ~_vo ~ O E R 3 •~ ~ 3 > . c ~ O ~. ~" ~ ~ O C O ~ d ~ ao~ •O ~ ` O L a ~ ~ ~~ z 3 ~. . ~ ~, o ~ y LL ~ c V ~ y ~x ~ =~, ~ • ~ ~ y d N C y ~ u O" cd ~ ca 1..1 ^ C a O yRI (Sr y ~ y„~ ~ a ~ c`~ ~ ~ F .p co °~ ~ y ~ ~ ' ~ ~ O •- t~ y c u 'n y o 00 c ~ .~ ~ W A~ c ~ ~ a~i a~i a`S c r a~ d C~ Q r d ~ ~, ~ ~ ca ;Q R 2S •~ a•~~ aZ o~ ~ C ~°° y y y ~,°~~~ - w ~ 'C7 W O LC rl ~ O L ~ y ~~+ 7 y LO ~ ~ h ~" Q ~.r ~ a ~ = C _ V 6) N v (~ ~ y , Qw . . C d ~ ~ ~+ A 3 C v w ~. rn ~ 'O ~ 0 3 ~, 7 /~ = z~~ o ~a 3 ~ ;~ , a~ °' ~ ~ v o o o r ~ 3 c~a a ~ ,,ce F-' c`o Z cti ~ ~ 'oC-n e`o c ~. `8. E c W C 5 c~ z 0 LL ~" Q~ ~~ W ~a ~ ~L 0 [^ u 3 ^+ O ~a ~~ HW A 0 Y C ~ Ir~~. '~Y~. O ~G OD Z 3 ~ n n o ~^+ I.n ~ •~_ ~ o ~ ~ ~ C R U Uy`° 3 a oc .~ I.n ~ ~ _ C .r ~ ~ ~ d .r R ~ .~ N ~" co C _ ~ O ~p tC C R cg V~ O ~~ O ~ y ~ ~ C CE W 'n O 4 •G ~ ~ C y ~ N . ~ N h ~.. ~ w G ~ C V N .G t0 d N 7 A ~= vi ~+ C ~ .C H ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ f/1 d ~ C.1 ~ ~ y '~ G d ~, C ~ GO V b L C H h ~ V Z ~ ~ . ^f C ^ ~] ~ ~ 4 ' ,~ d /Y /~~ ~O ~ U y co O~ ~ u C Z C t p ~ ~ C C ~ p N U ~ ~ y U ~ V N ~ C G. G" bA GL O ~ /~ /" ~ V L~ ~ y y 7 ~ N ~ 'O Q ~~,. ~ y y ~p ~ ~ ~ _ r ca ~ _ y ~R p •~ 'C ~ ~ ~ • ~j ~ Q , ~ ~ ~ h ~c '0 C O ~ L' C y lp ~ ~ d O . ~ ~ U co '~~ U_ v H ~',~ R V 3 N U ~~ y ~ b ~~ .. , , y ~C~+ 7~ N O' ~ ~ C ~ H H ~ N ~ L0 ~~ ~~ y ~ ~ O v ~ C l^ ~ ~ h ~ LC O v ~ ~ + Fi V ~ Fi ~ h ~ V A A ~ M~ 1 ~ F~ 1 ~ F~1 W O .0 y 1 ~I Li a a~;~ a- ~~~ ~ ~ C a~ a~ aaa ¢. ~iac a° ¢3 ~3 ~u ~~o b o p .~.. •~ v ~~ u O Q y L .3 4R.. Vi y O ~ h 4 CO /~y f..i. V ~ 'y ~ h C °~ ~ cv C :° i r ~ O ~ O ~ v °~ c :~ U p C ~U .r . R. 0 U ~ ::~ ~ 7 yy C~ y V O a~8 ~~~ c C~ a~ ~ y v _ . ~; .E o v_ x o ~ _v ' _ ' ~ , .v o o o ~ ~ 3 ~ C ~>+ io w_ ~ ie yC is c`i C L. U D h ~. ~~ ~3 y •pq 3 a~ y ~, as y a~ W ~ ~ ~ p v~ u O ca O ~ = h .C O O 3 .C C ~ y ~ C eo r3 ~ C `~ , C O C ~ ~ ,O ~ 9 .~ , v y , ~ •a 3 •~, C7 c ~ C7 ~ ,o C7 O ~ o~ ~~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~„ 7 ~ ~..~ N •~ z. U _ y C y c ~ ~ o . ~ .~ Q co c Gl `-° ~ CA tx1 u " y ~ O' 7 ~. ~ ~ ~ fir W ~; ~ /.. ~ ~'" C ~ -i ..+ ~ w ` -~ N v a ' ~ h :.: N R v.~ F. A ~ v ~ te ~ nj cy0 C 9 D :a i+, O~ Q R O ~ C Q ~ O ~ O a . a~'~~s ; ~ v 9 a.s~R ark ~ a E eCo E c ~n c a err 5 Q ~~ W E C 4~ V rl IOC~ V F W W x °o a m eo = ~C ~ OD = a ~ ~ 7 .! ~ r; C C6 R O .r O O ~~++ v ~ ~ ' ' •' ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ C ~ C4 'C 50t C ~ 6n ~ ~ ~ ~ ' C" V y Q~ 'C L O O o ~~ C 7 y r. . h O d 7 ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 'y ~ y C' ~ lC W ~ w ~+ ~ ~' N ~ N ~ y ~ .Z ~ ~ .C y O 'O c0 E p •~ ~ '0 " ~ C ~9 Q C V '~ R CO ~ ~' O U ~~.. ~ ~ `~ d C ~ ~ Vl W N h ~ O ca O ~. bj ~ ~ ~ Vi ~ L. N 'G Cy, N +' ~ cC 7 ~ / C C ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y ~ U ro ~ r F • G e Ir ~ a•5 ~~~ c ~ ~ ICI C~ ~j N ~ cep a..~~ U ~~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ _ v • ~ W •V y h O ^ W ~ ~ O i 'O L N i7 6) ~ 6) ~ ^' ~ • O y ~ .6 y Q ~r .~ ~ .7 C ~ y 7 1. ~ h ~ ~ ~ g _ •O ? . ~ H O ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~ U ~ ^, y C y~ ~ .L y ~ v y ~ ~ `. Z O~ Op h O ~ ~ .~ J ~ bq ~ ~ ~ C ~ O C ~ O ~ O y E ,,,,, ~~j ,C rh W c~pp M Q~ QI (,~ ~ ~p y " ~ 04 ~ ti-. ~ ~ •~ R~ N in a ~ r m U .C c0 ~ U~ Z U G. r U t/1~..1 'C -~1", U~ C U d •y ~ ~ ~ ~ yy ~ fA ~ ~ ~ e-y ~ QI n /I y O f I. ~ L O y ~.d ~ eh I.n W ~ O Y ~ '0 V , ~ ~ `' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ci •V .~ ~ ~ h O ~ y C ~ C ~i T ' SSA 7 O O = ~ ~j • f Q ~ ~ w y b O •o^z ~ U r ~ ~' C b ° °~ u ~ ~ ° ° O W a c O $ ~ ~ 7 ~ . C o0 C N ~ a ~ ~.~o ~ • o h c ,~, ~ y o rx o y ;, ~ f ~ i "' ~ a J s ah _; •~ O A~~ U o4 U V ~ , ~ D ~ y ~ a, ~ ;a V U U a ~ V ° ~ 3~ c~ C C ^~y W C reb' c a 5 x~ .~ z ,~ z a tr. a O k. ~ O ] F ~ w F J Q N H (^~+ w H .~ a w .~ O U C e~ a tea/ W Q 0 w O e ~ 0 u +• o`~0 w ~ o ~ 00 f. V1 ~ V 'ai y ~ y O ~'' ~ ca a~ ~ ~ ~ aCi ~ o c a ~ y 7 V y vl CC .~ C .r ci ~ ~ ~ C ~ Q y ~ u r. 8 a°i ~" o a~ y a 'Ci ~ U '~ cyp ~ U co" Iii ~ 0 w 'C O i" p. ~ ~ C C R R ~ c~ ' c _ ,~ ~ ~ V ~ Ir ~ '~ ~i y ~ ^ ' ~ C p ~i Z ++ p ~ y O C CC ~ ~' OQ ~ ~ c~ ~ C R N 'SS 7 y U ~ .~ ~ ~yyy N ~ R ~ .r ~ G bCA • ~? ' .Z.+ h ~ . ~ ~ y L ~ O O o ~C c ~ C C 6) °' ° ' ~ . a c° ~ y n. 'o y 0 • o h ~ cv a. a i ~ ~ ~° y ~ am ~ ++ y ~ ~_ ~ •y L ' ~ t~ O ~ y N ~ ~ C ~ R O C p 6~ . . C C ~' is ~ ~ •~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i y W Z ~ ~ ~. ~ > C ca 3 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ _ 8 ~ ~v C C O ~ e h N ~G+' C~ G V L i L. ~ O ° 0 C O Q~ ~ ~ ~ g .c O. ~' ~ ~ o ~ ~ G ~ • R •U ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~~~ ~ ~ o: z s ~ R N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C y cC0 ~ ~'G N O . Z P. ca c p a, ' ~ 3 v ~ Q~ V ~ ~ C. ~ ,E ~ C ~ ~ l0 y ~ • ca h N ~ y O Q ~ v, V] .. p ~--I ~ C C ~ ~ N Ln R a ~ 'h ~ 0 v o 0 o a c ao tC N H ~ a-+ 0 • h 0 O ~ r R ~ ~ ~ O C O I U C ~~ ( ~ C ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ y . ~ {.n w O w U O C C4 r; M ~ ~ ~v a~.+ ~~ 7 c~'~ ~ ~ 0 •~ ~ V c `~R. N V ~ c 3 E N R ~ C d C ' Z O O 6~ N~ VJ ~ d O Z N ~.+ h ~ w • 7 ~ ~ ~p ~ ~ p ~ y a~i 'v, ~ ~ ~ ca Z Z O C u Z : W E~ ~~ a> ~ a~i r ~ p u u 'o y ~ ;v ~ °a ca y c E . ~ a i . ~; ao~:~ ~ 9~ ~°~ o ~ . ~ C ~ x U a~ C C H~~ ~ ~ U w O C R p `~ C ~ ~'! (~~p U . U it ~ . ~ " R r7 y ::~ . C t .. a a ~ ~ d ~ ~~r p •y ~ . °_ C Ay O °' a~°i ~ ~ ~ ~ p 'O Q ~ " ^~' ~ CC v "'~ ~ 3 ~ w ~ y ~ ~ ~ N U ~ N ^ C 4.~ , pj I , ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ d~ cow ~ O axi aXi ci 'G '~ 0~ .~.a 3 cv a G.S A c`o ~8+. C C C II cv C C ap h 5 /~GyQ W _ FBI r7 ~ 4 ~+ W `~ N U ~ W E-~ ~ W z Q y ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ 3 C a. Q 'C1 ~ ---Nyyy C ~ W 'C ~ ~ p y h N RO p~ p •C `B C u.. > O ~' y~ ~ .u ' ~ ~ cE ~ y C p O E Hc ~ f11 ~ p ~ ~ = ° ~ C E 'o a i v ~e ~, •~ r ~a °~ ~ E ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~; ,.. ~ o .~ n. C ' y ~ R , ~ '' QQ a o .... y c ~ ~ ~ '~ a~i .Q ~ ~. a .~ a, ~5 ~ E o ~ • 0 3~ ~ B~ E ~ ~ ~ y ~ _ (Q ~ ~ V ~ ~ LO O~ _ v ~ b 7 w ~ ~ .d ~ y ~ ~ ~ C O C h ~ ~ ~' U °' O ' ... " r ~ ~E •~ °` W ~ ~ V c 'h oc Lpp bq T1 ~ ~ ~ oc ~ V w C~ ~ 3 ~ . C £.' ~~~• V ~ ~ R• y; y ~ N R a ~ G ~ _~ C L ' O ~ U ~ y ~ ~ -• G v y F h C ~ r ~F+ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ C ~ ~ fO V ~ `~ ~ ~~s+ ~ 0~0 + V d ,6 ,p q C 2 ~ C V C ~ _ 'G' _ o ~' o °' ~ ~ E N N _ A ~. C a r ~. ~ a~ C ~ 'tV Eo ~~ ~ c~ay0 cyE ~;;u 'a ' c or~ rn c w O .a ^ y C E ~ ~ C CC ~ r t ~ ~ ca E n. C° C) v~ C ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ C O C ca ~ E N y`" _ h ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ V ~ '-' O R °; a c oft °' ~E :? ~x._ „ r o N u a(a N . ~.~ y f].~ c ~ y' o ~~ aOOi ~ .,. U O r c~ $ ~ U 3 ~ ~ °~ ~ r o 3~ 'a ~ ~ ~ o n. ~ u~ ,o ~ c C C ,~ C O 3 ~` W p >j C a N~ C cg a •~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ C d E ~ - y e w ~,.., O '~ N .~ y~ r ~/ j ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ a ~ ~ W N LO O ~ ~ o r a = p~ ~, o p ~ ~~ x E o ~= 8 w ~ ~ > ~ ~ c ~~~ ~ °g n ?~ `~ ~ ~ E ~, d ~ F ~ ~ 'O ~ . E ~ w y p a`i a> vi W '° R ~+ °' E h a u ~ D is ca y ,ao ~ . o r_ ~ 3~ o .. e O ~ E~ h ~ " k `o U ~ ~ E ? ~ ~ ~ ,Q V CO ~ E ~ E V ~ ~ V U L: y a~ a ~ ~ ,> °~ oD G7 Z U u b ~ ~ a E O `~ ~ r4,; _ O c VJ ~ oq C~ `^ ~ C U ~ ~ '~' ~ W C ~ rJ N ~ V N ~ "" 6) C •° ~ r ado c ~ oa err '~ Z ~ oU ca h v ~ oa u _ cv ° ~ ~ ~ c -°°' V Z ~~u p F ~ y E h a~ m Z o~ ~ "'~ a ~ E~~ E d ~~.d E ~~r F Or ~' ~ ~ o cc F~ .$ ~ pj axi ~x' ( OFG ~i ~' ~ ~ a ~ E ' c ~ , a~ E ~,• ~~ O Ac cW ~ .~ c c o ~ ` ° o ' °' Q o v O c ~ w ~ ~ y ~ o 'c W a~i $ ~ ~ O A, a~i d '~ ~'u c ?' ~' ~ a . ~ ~ o F Ri ~ ~ a~ D cd E ~ `.I.' °~ ci w Grp ,C !-~ ~ ~ k: ~ cd .`. `~ ~ Qq U ~ U E `8. E c h ~ ~" o~ w~ ~'~ F y W ,~w ,VJ 7 "~ O p„ ~ u W `/ °' U ,a ~ E+ W O W z O O ~ w = 3 ~ ~ O co 'v' a c a °' ~' ~' L h °' e ~ ~ U V '7 cn a . N ~ .~ U La ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ W y,y ~'" LC C ~' ~ va h C R' ° i r 0 > 0 ~?~ o ~ - v ~ Y ' .~ L>` .~ ~ C ~ ~ y u ~ ~ ~ R 7 O h ~ . H .O ~ h ~ ' O C ~ ~ y ~ C . ~ • 1 ' ~`~ ~ C ~ bQ o ~' - C {.n R ~ O c 2 h o 0 3 y .~ ~:D 3 a.o R C o ~ u g 'd '0 R~ d ~ C~~ U ~ ~~., ~ V '~: ~~ ~ 'G '~ E' y U ' V ° '' 6~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ u> ~,.- Ica w~u~ ~ ~ ~ 'v C ~ ~ o O OQ y cC O .-+ O .~' ~ 7 U~~ ' y g 0~ C O o ~ 'G O {.. y O ~ 3 ~~ O ~ ~ ~, "i~ ~ °A .0 $ ca ~ p U °= ~ ~ ~ v o ' c a i x p ~O v =' ^;'~ a A ~ ,~ a oA c o0 :~ ~ ~ u p ... C1 ' , W ~ ~ . U 7 C Z Z ~ Z.~ s Z ~~ 1" ~ O . ~ y . G op ~ c c ~ ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca ' V U ~ G" T O O Q..~+ V ~ N ~ .. U .C y ~ ~ L y C0 p U C Z •~ Z ~ ir' h O f,',' ~ ~ ~ py lE Q 'o ~o 0 3 C~ o r " Z a a~ cv ea .`~.. u u 3~ a> ~ K . u o U~ v ~ r oo W ~y Q `~. ~ . ~~ C O w ~ c N e ,~. A C C d r O ~ _ ~ W •0 N y `~ ~ 7 0 C C N~ ~ v. O t~ l4 y O ~O q n ~ 'C 7 .? ~ Q O M ~ Q bU w E ~r , W ~ i '~ LC CC ~ U . ~,J ~ . ' r.i y,y .'3 .d ' ~ O v 'O ~ ` ~ 'fl ~ U C a ~ o a> ~ ~~~ ~ 3 ~ ~o a~i c o ~~ ° ~ ~a ~ ~, 00 y Q~ y ' ~ ~ O N rr y~ r Z y~ 0 .-+ ~ O ~ c O U ~ h H y ~' W v r a W C bq o ~~ c v ~ ~~~ F ' c d W r u S ~ ~ is. ~ o~ ~ .~ c z ~~ o ~ o~ u ~ .c3 ~-- ~ ~ ' a~ Z ~ 1 c ~ a~ ~ Z° v ,,_ >, pA~ A 3~ V h e 0 • ~ ~, Q ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ a •~ ~ Q ...Z F 0 x ~ ~ ~ z ~ I ~' v •o ~ "" ~ ~ o v w o ~ o U a ~ C7 G7 R Z 3 ~ ~ ci Z a .~ x a a .: R~ s C bQ C t0 E c oco a rr~w VI ~a u W ~~ N U ~a HW O U W z U C ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 -, o c ° ~ o o ~ a~i ~G 00 ~ °r " ~a G. eo ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ . « iv ?p p C •p N R y C ~ 9 'u ~ ~ . ~ C ~ ' ~ GGGC CCC I Y 0 O V ,,,, O ° W cv ~ y a O c~ ~ V ~ V ~ ~ _ Z U D • CD ~ W ~~ 33 ::N w ~ ~ ~ 'C7 ~ X Z C ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' a ` ~. '~ ~ c 'c'a ~ U ~ y O er ~ C c °' ~ 3'. ~a r R ~~ $ ° - '~ V c o~ a R ~ b ~v~aa da. °~ ¢~ E'y a `' ~'3 „'~ ~ ~ w C~aai a ~ s ° c C U .+ ~ •~ ~ c ° o ~ ~ aua° a'o ~ U O ; ~ ~ ._ 'd ~ ~ ~ I.n a ~ V ~ ,C C ~ ~ ~ p U ~' c0 ~, ~ 1..~ ~ ~ o y Q t' ~ " `+ pip y ..' ~ a •~ h •; 7 w C y R CO ~+ C 7 c0 Z V N _ ~"' 'h y Z ~ y ~ Oq :: ~ C y ~v w~~ a w ° C '~ h ~ • .T~ X ~ Q~ ~ 1.. '~ h ~" ~.d ° R 1 y °`a'° MM •~ a'te' ~ ~ ~ V ~ C ° , c ~ ~ ~' V j ' y ~ ~ ~ ~ c O O ~' • ~~ ~N y oC0 ~p"CQ ~ a ~~.. u R y ~i' ~ ~ R cC~Op ~ C R ' ~ ° '~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ C.' p~ ~ C O •r •R • V O y ~ C ~ p((~vi a 7 ~~++ cC C C ~ v ~ rr~~ o~ o _ ~~ '-°n. .a•°y-° _ ~ ,, '-°d0= as ~ ~ N .C ~ ~ a R C v ° ~ . E n ~ ° E '° . a ° ° z t° '" ~' ~ cav . ~ ~ a ep °~' o .n ~ ~ ~ a~ . co .ai ~ ~ °~ C ~v U ~ ~ ~+ 3 ;? a 3 c u ~ u r; ~ c ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~. ~~~3 ~~ V ~ ~ ~.' acv ~ I ~ I. y I.n o ~'~ ~ W V a' ~' L ~ auk r .. 1° ~° ~ N a ~ tv '~ ° ~ cv Q) C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ cv ~ N lv o c4 Cv ~ O y ~ ~ u 5] 3 JJjJ n. a o O ~ . ~ n. ~ ~ ~ ~ v t ~ c ~ ~ B ~ o ~ rte' o~ „ .aa v r ~. ~ u E ~ ca ~~ : 'o O c U r '° $ ~ ~ o Q v~ ~~ ~ a y~ OC C ° C~ ~.+ O N O. ~ C V ~ ~ N a Z 4= C N C W C ~ O _ ~ 0 'd ~ i '.u-+ V' G ~ M '~ L C ~'~ ~ d ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ w u . ~' a°, ~ . o°. O ~ ~ °' 9 . ° c x Cl. U u ~ ~, u ~. E~ , o ~ ~ H W OG ~ ~ a ~ F . ~ a ~ E ~..~ a~ ~,o ° °'~ avyy .oy ~ y~ ~~° a '~° ~~E ' o cav O '~ a `° ~ U R ~ ~ y '° a~ ;; ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~~ m A~~ ~ z 3 ~ ~, w ~ ~ r U ~ 3 ci ~ 'o C7 '~ ti coo -$ cd °~ ~ ~ ~ cd c~v in o ~ c~v ~. M~1 c ~. 8 c N 5 xN ~~ z ,~ z a¢ w O ., 0 w~ O~ F ~ tr3 L~ L~ ,,~w V/ a c a, v W N U ~ ~" F"~ ~W.y U W z 5 y o V ~ C OD Y ~ U ~, Vl v h '~ v w y v ~ > ~ "~ OQ o w OQ •~ ~ y C y N .-. S f~ Lr ad ~ ~a o ~ ; Q, ~ 9~o ~Ny~ w o~,~ ~ 0 0 • C ~ ~ ~ 'n U~ _ h R a~ ,~Q _ w C " C ~ :~j ~ c~0 pE C U fn v~ ~ ~ C ~pR L: y L ~' ~ ~ ~ C.> C 00 ~ C7 ~ ~ ~ 'y O r C o ~ d ~, ~' w ~ E .5 ~ ~ 'v a~ i. ~ ~ E •~ ,~~° E E ~ u~ °9 o n. .c ;; ~ ` v r es i, c> C E C E r o O .. ~ Z O p C ~ ~~~ ''p R v ~` d u O ~ N ,O ~ 'O d C ,r o ~ ~ t. ~ 'v oc ~ ~o~ E'fl N vgEaci •'-, ~.N ~ ~'..~. y ~•N L' f.n ~ ~ O'O ^z~' S T ~ y ~ gib'' '~ ppu~e~ ~ ~' ppu ~ ~ R " ~~v 3 R C ~ ~_ ca F ~ F ~ C ~ . ~ ~. p O ~ w '~ '~ Q _ Ci. ~ c a. w p ~ a. ~ c ~ `c4 • _ CJ E ~ ~ O U r`7 N .~+ ~ ~ '~ V; lE 'p 7 ~rr7 N CCO C ~ w L ' G V ; ~ ~' ~ t ~ .: cE rG E o n ~ y O E c .O ~. ~ ~ N ca N G C ~ ~ p ~ ~ c`~ r 'n c`"o r ca ~` - . O ~ i°u a = ~ c ~ ~ •y ~ 3 ,~, ~ E W ~ E~ W 'o r~0'o a ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~'o~ T' ~ ~ ~~ 'U N ~a U~ BZ.y~ W R ~ y o . 3 0~ ~„ w u r E u r E . c g ' N Z C 00 v v N p O. O C p w O w O v ~. E~ y 7 ~ ~ ~ on E H •U Q C O C Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ 'v 0 c :: U o ' U o ' _o ~ ~ u O C CC y (~ y ~ f/~ w 0 Qy O h C ~ O `~ C ~ R' N h ~ .--1 ~ h ' c ~ r.3~' ~ ~ ~ R, a~ a~ ccaRCo ~ V ., O ° ~ N r~j~ c ~ ~ = ~ ~ = w, x a, X C iv ~ ¢ c o ~ ~ .. ° • y a v 'G ~ ~ 'O ~ ~ a 7 ~ w ~ c_Qw~ 4.n b ~ E„ ~ c ~ ~ c ~ ' w ca y ~~ o y o h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 F.. = A ~ E~~ Eu$ Ec~~°~ ~u w ~ ~ ° ~ z < `~ ~ o 'a ~ o a~ o 'c ° ° A °' '= g am ~ ' ~ , ,c c ro~~ a• ApO o flog DoE~~ c c •• c 3 ~ 3 3 cr c a`i ~ o a~ E ~ E $ ~ '~ L L ~ ~ ~ Z V 1.n y_ z V ` UI .~ Z V Q~ ~ C h ' V ' ('' P C ~ Ld ~ U IG W ~ u ~ rl, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ V ~~•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~aA ~ ~aA ~ ~a ~~ ~ ~.E i~. e C 8. E c OD r, ~}y ~ W R QQ~ a N W `/ N :: U ~a F W O U W z o u ++ ~ ~ ~~ r 3 l~ ~, L ~ aL+ V u i `` p l~ F-~ o ° ~ •c 1..1 ~ ~ '_,' ~ ~ ~ ', ~ ~ y ~ 0 c ~ ~v R ~ y ~ • ~ ~ w W a ` C C E -' U C p O ~p Yom' o C E E ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ • ~ o U O ~~a =°•° •E~ °°''° Syr E E C ~ '~ „ e ~~Cp E y v {{{777rrr ~v 8 u~i R ~ ~ ~ ~v c ~ ~ • ~ ~ (C ~ • ~ ~ 9 ° 5 V ~ CO ~ y Vi ~ l~ ~ ~ •~ 0.7 ~ y (~ ° o .o Q+ u • co 3 L+ v °q V h r E r ° ~++°w~ ~ y W ~ ~ ~ Ly~ ~ Q ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ L: I.n V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'' c - ° ° ~ a BO ° v 4 y C C~ ti r ca ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ `~ O ~ O O C R C p V ~ ~ y v 'C •~ ~ 'S y ~ ~ ' y ~ ~ C a u~ C ~ ~ C ~ 9 ~ O ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~ l"" E ' O ~ 'h ~, tC ~ w .~ C cp ~ C 'C ~ ~ a°o~ ~.c r~ a.°~ ¢~'°~ `° • • C ~ ", ' N ~ ~ G W ~ •' R 4Vr ~ ~ G ~ ,0 ~ ~ ~I ~ ' ~ . p o _ u Gl. . O 1 . O G. i v :° ~ ° E • W Q h ~'' u ~ ~ ~ u. ~ ~ ~ ° y ~ C 1 ' ~> N G~6 v ~ (O LLpp C G. ~., .~" . d .~ y d ~ ~ ~ ~ o `d ° w ~ Qy `° ' ca u • 3 c v~ c ~ R ~ c ~.0 ~° og o~ ~E Env u.~ U 33 ° A c °~ W ~ ~ b ° ~ c c ~~ o E r a~i n• ~ ~ o ~ c c z ~ c c R ~+ ° '" (Jy c$ ~ LS a r~ O 0 ~'o ca a"~~ r R eFe a... . a~ ~v a.cya ~ N ~ c ~ E W ~ R ~ n. ~ ~' ' w0 ~ ca9 ~ ~~ ~ W ~ 0 C ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ,OY, ~ ~ ~ O ~ .5 aci ~ O U Li ~ ~ 7 ~ ° ~ ~ Ii ° fi ~ 0 Y y 3 n ~ oo '° u A 3 a° ~ i e> 3 V { r ° ~ ~ a• ~ ,.:, ca ~ - c ~ a ~ E ~ a ti W a• ~ ,.; ca ~ W 0. ~ ; iv y N e ;~ ~ c ~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~ a ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~= 3 ~ u ~a~ w ~ ~~ r ~a a ~ oaW z ~~ ~. •w- ap c E c .~ 5 ~ ?" ~~ w~ O ~ H ~ W 1~ Q rte} ~ o/ r7 ~a ~W .~ N ~ ~ H ~ 0 A W z s a ~ o :r C ODD V :+ ~~ ~ `~ N O C ~~~~ • ~~~~ p N L. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y 'L7 y 3 " U DA " ca h ~ • LC N R VJ U~ ~ S U `~ o n o c~ p c_ ~ ~ y ~a y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C? d o . E h '~ "~ c y v a a ~ `" ~ ep c v B co C E r c w 7 _ w O ~ ~ o •~ u~ C > p 8 O C R • y yy i ~ C ~ ~e+ 6. ~ .+ y y e0 7 ~' v i 3 Z ~ C ~i y R O cC p a~ O O 'O C ,,, ~ ~ R S v c ~ 'C3 ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ N ~ c0 C bq •7 ' ~' ~ C • ~ C d ~ ~ ~ pp d ~ ~ ~ r d ~ 7L O+ C ~ Q. G. OU V N y ~ LO . {~..~ R v ~ V1 • _ RI ~'j ~ 3 ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~' ~ `~' ~ w o' O C ~, ~ O ~. ~ ~ U h '~ T 7 O C y U Z. CO ~ U U. ~ y7+ CO °~° ~ p ,q N y .~ U ,,.., ~ ~ " •y U U d w 3 .~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ - C FC ari ~ cv bq ~ ~ V .y C V y ~ ~4' y •~ y ,~ y ~ y ~ V .y C F-~ •U W H ~~r~° "'~ `ii 4" ' a.$,oh a.~~2 ~--~ a~ N a.o ~ C ° c ~ ~ ~ c . ~ ro c a ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 o 3 •° R a`°i '° ~ c ~ °~ cya ca ; S 27 O c>v ~ V I_I OL ~ Q) bQ y O _~. .~~, y ca y 0 3 .O y C d oH..o E a~'~~a~ oo~ 3 a a~ cyo ~ ~' °°'° c o ~ . ~ y C ~ '6 9 C ~ 'O Ll. Oy • C . ~ ~ V . y cCC - ~ w ~ C ~ ~ ~ •i o i ' y ~U v a v s o E ysr~ ~3C°c v :: ~ `~-~ c ~ ~ ~ °° E • W ~ a ~ 3 •~ o ._ ~ O ~ s u o o ~ R ti w ~ g~ a ; 3 Vi ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ y 0 0 C z ~ „ ~ ~ v N U d ~~ N ' ~ _ ~c+ C~ h 'v~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~:~ •5 3 ~ C CO o ~u •_o d d~ R U ~ l0 N O .y.. ~ h y ~ ~ y V U C •~ w C ~ v y ~ :: C (,r~ in ca ~ N 7 ~+ p c C ~ y rn v~ C y C 'd R ~ V y ~ ~r ~ ' ~ ~ ~ C ~ c0 C7 ~ cC C ~ ' _ :+ ~ c r C C ~ v " ~ C ~ 6 A" c ca 3 ~ ~ c a :~ o .~ ° ' o c a~ ~ .` ~ ~ ;~ a ~ ~ w ~ e g, ~ .~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 0.~ C 0.~~~- a y ~ + f V N O rG .+ y ~y° ~ d ~ ¢~~ 3~~ ~ ¢~s~ . `~. E C ~_ E c a r~rw yI ~a u W ... ~ N °' U ~a ~W W z O Q ~ W ~ C OD ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ u ?.e R ~- ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ yy (Q O ~ ~ D ~ C C ~ 'd cr'i `' S ~ 'b O N ~ {. ~ ~ L to v c a C . + . .+ co . _ a ao .. 'C '~ V Z T R W ~ • r0 '~ ~ O ~ E h '~ N ~ Z ~.+ ~ W ~ Cn y ~ ~ R O •~.+ ~ ~+ a~ h :? .O ~~ ~ C eq u~ O ~ p C ~' ~ aT :: u R •~ „ a o ~ N y 'Q d .O N~~ h p, C op R N ~ y O R O H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ V L^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ d L' ~ CO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ •7 ~ W U O R U z ~ ~ C ' ac u ~ O °~~ ~°'°> u ~ C ~==~ u'O r C ~ ~ C 7 C O • Q ~ E c 0 (C~ p- ~ L i i ~ '6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I V ; h ~ ..~ ` ~ ~ /} ~! ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ V ~ ~" ~ N ~ R .-. CC ~ ~ R 'G ~ ~ ~ ~ H 7 'C ~ ' C ~ ~ 'fl O y ~ ~ • ~+ ? h ~ ~ 'd ~ C C N • CC ~ ~ O ~ p ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~, y N r ~ C C ~ h 'O R ~ U tp ~ "'i ~ N y ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ «~+ O v a ~ W C ~~.. C y ~\ C 8 ~ ~ O y ~ O C ~ ,~ O .~ -fir U 0 w y y W 1..1 h V V 1~1 (Q ~ N F'~ CA ~ ~ ~ •Q ~ Ir -- ~ y~y 7 C y 'fl y O ~ O V d '0 ~Wy ~ ¢ ~ R 3 .~ 3 ~ ~ ... ~ a „ ~ ~ C L" x as a~ ~' ~~o u .~ c .y ,y a~i ~ r a y L' .C ~ ~• 8 °'~ ~ E °'°~' E c ~,o h ° °' °Q ~' cx e W e ~ ~~ c° °' `~ c , p ~"~ N R ~ N '~ ~ '~ p ~ cd E aQ Ep W = c'" ' ~~-z a v~ Erb 4 /y E~ 4 /y U x ~, ~ °vo ~ $ u = ~ Q ~ O C U O w ~ \ c ~p Q~ ~~ ~ 4J 0. 'N o { ,,, ~ o•~ u ~ ~a o ~a o y a~ ~ ~ - '4 C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ N U V h A C S ~~a ~~ r .. ;~ o ~~ V d U~y ~ t ~ a ~~ a~ a ~~~ ' ~3 . ~ ~ $. E C c ~. E (c w .~ a~ ,~ z .A ,~ z R+. w O ~~ 0 .. w~ O~ F N W W a rte} ~_ W ^rC p„ V ~~ N ~. °' U ~ a E-~ W O U A W z 4zl a °o o ~ e ~ ~3 0 0 '~ ~_v 7 .; ~ O ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ' L L L" ~ O ~ 0 ~ V ~ w d ~w V ~ ... C ~ co > C C ~ m 00 ~ °~ p ~ u ~ t ~o ~ ~~ ~o ~ V ~ W y O y 0 ~ ~ Z h ~ ~ 'a Q ~ .3 u ~ N y ~ ~ W C O iv ash y ~ ~ ~~ a . U U PS n. u d E e V ,w- e 00 a~ c . ~ 0 N a U .., ~. e V LRi V w_ oc'b C `~. E .~ c .~ N 5 z A z ~. w O a- F ^~^ ~ 1~ a .~ w O H as O x Fr -~ w ° a ~ eo ~ ~3 = r ~ a a `O t ~' a o H a y ~~ C V y o 0 'cD ~a ~ E ~ Ln `$ ]. L •V ~ `' a C ~ '~ _ O N .~.+ 'n C~~ a .~ ~ ~ ~ h C ~..+ `~ C4 ~ ~' r a3i $ ~ c ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ° ? a~ c ~a w ev ~ o ' ' ~ . ~ ~ E r te ° ' a ~ ~ ~'o 0 O ~ O „ C ~ C6 w C y S N~~ ~ ~ ~ j ~y ~ ,0 d '0 y ~ ~ ~ ,~ U LN' Qa Z ~ O ~ .3i Y ' ~Q ~ ~ ' ' ~ h~ ~ u, ~+ ~ 'v d - xa~ `' h a o .+ c'v°~c ~ ~ o O a ~ d~a c C u ~ ~ a ~o S ~ ~ y ~ w y L ~ o i+ h°~' CC T ca a~a~ ~ G ~ ~° y ~ L. ~ ~. aa~,~_o ~ a c0 ~ ~ ~j ~ T N ~ h ~ ~ ~~ C O _D ,~ a ~ ~ ~ . ~ v a~ °i > a~i ~ pp C O r~ `~ ~ N W O ~ y Lr C c C ~ , ~ h C ~ R C '6 u ' C ~ C~ ~. C ~ ~ ~NiC/ ~ ~ W '~ N t ~ ' ~ C ~ N O O~ 7 ' ~ ~ W ~ ~4Q5' . y ~ }~. ~ ~ C (O a ~ ~ v C h V ~ ~p ~ y ~ 'C ~ ~Q u u `, ~ O C ~ a0 ~ O~ C ca ~ c0 a3 ~_. + cC ~ b ~ ~' ~ O C oq :. h fV y ~ a cN~+ ~ ~ . O C ~ ~ ~ ~ _ °' ~ a u m~ 8 a ° o ~ ~ ~ z E ~ ~ ~~ ODI ' C ~ C C '° ~ ~ U 3 ~ ` ~ N R c ca ao ~ ~ ~ ~ v c ~ "'~ ca C ~^" ~ ca v~ ! C Qy ~ v ',n ~ ~ N O ' .v Y ~ ~ _ om O c~ c v ~ m C u r. O ~ W V ~p ~j _ Q~ _ O C C6 LC ~ C s C n' 'C N ~ ~' ~ O ,~ c h R v ~ °Q ~ ca A. ~ ~ C °~ ~, C ~ ~ .~ .. o °~ a r '° a0i ~ ~ ~ a y o `~ r c c ~ a. ~ d " C 'C ~ '~ ° ~ a i .U ~ `~ k. vi c ca v~ E nn ~ R y .C d C Z o O O Ji y~ F ~ '~ [~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a = ca ~ ~.y ~ w o . ~ a ~ ~ ~~ y t p~~ V Z y' 'p N N r] ~ T3 C •~ C ~ C F" ~ ~3 .g .~ ~ ~ o y o~ J ~ 0 ~ , . . ._ ' ~ ~ , a ~~' ~~ a~~:.- ~ ~ a oo ~ ~ G7 a `~ a ~ ~~~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ U 3 'a v 8 ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~~o Q `~' ~ .C h~~ ~` C U _ O C x S O N ~ C6 w aE ~ ~ ~ ~3~ ~ 'a3g ~ ,,,, a 3~ a 3 a~ ~y y c .c h ~ ~ ~ ° ~ '$ "" R R c_°a N v Q a N S C 9 O y ~ ~ . v y l a aw ~o~~~ ~ ~~ ~ a3~a a u~ C FN C eco C u ~. E c ecb 5 O z a z w w O ~" h Q' W u `+ M r_, ~ h,yw t~ 0 F a °o_ v : ~ ~ ~ =° + ° 0~0 C h U c0 .~ LQ R C ~ ~ ~ 3 b ' ~ u ~ V1 " 3 O O 3 3 "'.' ~ 'eQ a~ c .~ ~ C ~ c x c y iv ~ ~, o ,0 ca Oy .C u ~ O w U 'C3 ~ 'C3 ~ a> C B C O ' C E a ~ a~ . ~ C ~ { ~ ~ ~ . .^ 3 C rl ~ p O '~ I.n i'ii' ~ ~ ~ °4 ~ a O ~ O ~ ~..~ a E `~ co 'O ~ 'd E w e, ~ ~ ~ ry ~ ~ L ~ ~ U C ~ ~ R ~ • ~ 0 y! c O ° ~ C ~ ^° ~ ~ v ~ • 3• o W d g ~ O a~ O ca ~ C cv c a~ E ~ a> y u >~ a 'o ~~ ~ ~ ai C ~ D 9 ~ C ~ .--i ~ U •O ~ L ~ ca ~ g ~ . e4 ~ v E c .~+ c , y U c 'v'~ r o $, oq E a~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ u o .~ ~ ~ ~? n.r .r C ~ ~ y ~ ~ y ~ ~ E E p ~ ~ p ~ u~ t`g C y E a> 'p •~ u co ~, C y tC O 'd ~ ~ ° O c ~ ~ a r cv ' ~ E . • E •.. ~' ° c o U ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ a Ln ca ~ O r ~ Vl U a~ y ~ O ~, ' ~ c `n c ~ ~ y ~ y 0 ~ R ~ :Fi a C . L7+ ~ c0 " ~ ~ C ca ~i a oo ~ t y ca ~ , , c~ O + ~ ~ y ~ ., ~ • ~ ~~ •C y ~ y N `' ~ N O+ g E ~ Ir~v = ~ ~ C ~ c~ ° ~ ~ ~ ,~~' u c x 'o 'o ~ ~ in C y ~ ~5.~ C •~ ~O Oa y w eq C • % y ~ .o ~ r ~, 3 U ~ y p ~ ~ y yy Q7 ~ ~' $ ' V 0 r ~ ~ ._ ti C ~ C / w U LC S ~ O _" y .. 0 O a =C y ~ C~ ~ O a .fl 0 h ~ ~ Ir y h g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y z 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c Ga.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t F ~ u ~ a °° ~ °-' ~ a o ~ ~ y y ~ cv iv Ir H ~~ ~ a ~• ~~ ° z° Z ~o • o~~ 3 ~~ ~ a ~~ O u ~ ~ o L~ u ~ °?, , o~ C7 , ~ O ~ ~ V a~ ? ~ ~ . V a~ c . ~ 'v ~ ~ E Z pp ~ ~ ~ ~' ,`u O ~ C ~ y Q ~ ~ ~ p ~ U a, ~ ~ ,,,, °' r/~ ~ c~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ u r oa rah E >+ a Z y c p U o~ o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ _ ~ ~ ° U ~ c ~ • ~ ~ ~ 7 ' F • C , F" o ~ ~ '"' ~ s ~ ~ c ~ o~ ~ oo ~ ~ O~ c ca ~ O 0. `n A c 0 °i E O co a~ c ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ a3 s a g '~. o ~ _ E E ~' °: '~ o; ~ O ~~$ ~ 'a ~ ~o~u E 8 ~u S ~ y . a ~ W ~ x ~ ti , , ~ ~ ~ ~ F . ~ ~ $ U A ca D cd E ~ a~ ~ E fry ~ „ u kr . cd ~ `~ `$. E tG ~ib `~. E c 5 ~~ W Q u W `~ z M ~ ~~/ _~ Mil O a 0 ~' ;, a ~ ro W y o ~ .~~. 3 a c .d ._ _ °~ ~ .~ ~ a a ~o ~ ~~ c ~ ~ w _ ~ y ~ C ~ v C ~ ~ C v O ' y LO R b ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 R 7 ; _ `~ ~ bD bQ ~ 'y ~++ ~ A G N 7 p ~ ~ y 'a n ~ 'O ~ ES ~aY C ~ O G. ~ ~ ~ r` ~~+ N ~L ~ . C L^' C~ ~ O M. Z C• VJ C ~ N N ~ w. _ c C ~ 7 w ?C .~.+ ~ V tC ~ ~ ~ ~ ^, Q~ O ~ 0 rr •i _ '3 ~ .y CO W ~ ~ '~ ~ C~ ' O 7 O 7 ~ ~ h ~ C C D r ~" V 7 C O .p .p ~ 'O y B„ Z, ~ C Q y C ~ 6) N ~ y v C ~ ~ ~ O C O rYi G ~ ~ ~ ~ Vy?j h ~ C •~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ Q ~ C l ~ y ~ ~ Lam' C [~^, d « y„i C p ~ p ~C ~ E ~ + G~ ~ ~~ v O y cC ~ C~ O C. C C N ~ O '~ j ~'i ~' ~ r+ ~ • ~~y C~ E ~ ~ COU1 ~ ~ ear ~ C ~ C H ~~+ '~ '~ ~ ~ ~ C 6r ~ ~, ~ I r C~ ~ C ~ O rA O ea CYO D ~ ~ O G R V ~ • O N ~ ~ C c ~ ° c ~"i N '~ LO ~-+ u ~ E ao N 's cx o, o °~ . N y .o o~ fOi, e~p :. . ° ° ~ sn ~ ~ o W °~ E .~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ g U 7 ~ °_ ' ~ ~ U ~~ ya f ~ row c F G y Z~ h o F ~.~ Q W P •i ti ~ T W V i O V U .0 t ~ v ~ v ~ C O ~ 'fl •y . u w x O ~ O ~ O ca u O ~' ~ O 3~ O ~ U ~ ~ "' ~ • y ~ a R 'd C~ Z ' O ~ ~ '~ .~ a ° • uO u~ °' 0 3 3~ . + ~° c u y S U~ ~ ~ g. U~ w- a~ R C u ' j?+ a e ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ V H ~ ~ ~ •~ ~~ ~~ ~ oo ~~ ~a ~ °' ~ Z p .-r u o~ v ' 'C 7 U ~ ~ D v t. O O aE E w 3 0 g; o cv ~„ w ~~ •`~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ r~~~ ~_ c o_ '0 3 ed ~ N o ~ f/1 u Q~ ~ O > ~ ~ O ~ O Q~ _(~ rn u ~j V O ~' L L G: W w d O O 0 y z g • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ c ~ ~ c F" C ° ~ ~ ~ c~ °~ m ~ a R ~ c °~ ~ u ~° ~ ~ .o id r ~ ~~~ Boa ~ •~~ > ~~ z ~ c ~~o ~ ono y ~ O O ~ y~ ~ ,~ ,_, ~ ,°~, . C O v~ o L ¢ ~ ~ •C N '~ ¢ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~ • ~ ~ 'n / ~ Q •~ O ~ ~ ~ o ~ y ,~ N ~ ~~ N ~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ R coq rn Q ~ ~ w ~ d C OO ~ . c ~ ~, c a..~ r.~ ~~~ rr .0 ~ F N U ~ e O 0 _ fy.[ } Y v~ ~ y,y r ~~ c~ U cC ~ V c0 z ~ ~ r V ` ~ j z Q. ~ r~r F .~ i C W V 6! E c .~ ao 5 a w .. w O w A u W M ~ O F ~ a C ~ a+ a ~ ~ .T 3 ~ ° ~ aCi ~ n o "'' ~ :~ Q ao .y °C L O O C O.i o Q~_ 'd f..L c~a ~, ~ a~ ~..~ ~ C ..., ~ .° pQ "" ccp .~ '~ .C C ~ •~ ~ c J, o h V •Q' ° 4~ y w C ° ~ cC ~'. Q1 G. ~+ U O ~ I.n h N ~ C ~ ~- R ~ w C G • ~ C r ~ U , y y u p 7 'O ~ ~ ~ . d C Q y r . 7 ~ ~ 7 ~ Q. ca '~+ ~ C R C~ ~ l(r .0 r ~ C 1: ~ ~_ G4 'O V ~ OQ C ~ C C C •~ U j ~ ~ r. cC bq •y ~ ~ 7 4 . ~ , G ~ CO { U. , C ~ ~ .r O OA O C N y ~ O ~y" Uoy~++ C~ ~ ~ C C '3 O L.~ •~' O OU ~ ~ cO Q. C .V a'' '~ CO N G , ~ y w H Cd ~ C C ~ y ~ T R ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ O C ~ ~, - ~' ca _ a~ ` . . C ~ O v c ~ b 5 t ~ i~ c° c E c '~ ~ •~ u ~ `O ~ v ~ ~ c~ a~ u a i ' _ 4 '" ~ ~ v w h 6 _~ ~ N ? O Q C L3. W C Ln cE L ~ ~ T Q~ C pp fV G. y 'G C N `~ ~ 4 C O ~ C q ~ C U ~ 7 'p ~~ y 'O ~ . ~ ~ C .d C ~ .. ~ O :0 y N ~ N ~ O y ~ C eA c a , v~ ~ ,: d4: C O -~i ~. .. O ep C .0 O ~" , h R B .~ C C ~ ~ c v ~ V ~ ~ ro ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ .0 N C ~ .~ . ~ C C ~ U R ~ 7 oa C ~R Eo ~ c ° ~ ~v ~ ~° ' C , 3~ ~~ . ~ E .. a ~;: ~~ ~ ~ r ~ '~ a. ~ '' "" C ~0 cv ~ U ~ oo '~ r _ y N ~ h ~ ~ ~ 13 C ~ ~ ~ ~ r h ~ ' ~ ~ R ~ r ~ CC ~^ L C E ~ .. ~ , r a~ oo C C ~ A a ~ uR~ o ~ R~ r a~ ~w' ~~ ~m y ~ + ~ C ~ O R R ~ 'O ~ U cC i •. c cp ~ 7 ' ~ r . a Ov i W y a o O ~ ~ a ~~ E Y Y~ a ~ ~ R °' o ~ ~~' o~ ~rx ~ o. ~^ ( ~ ~~++ ° ~ .~? 7 p O ~ ~ Ur uj C ~ ~ C C ~~~ 0 ~ p r. G, 4r ° p ~ r C ca ~ 'p V ~ Z ( (~~ U a'., t °C' ~~ ~ w O ~ W OW a~i ~i' ~ ~ a O °' '~ c ° a i r C 7 ~ a . _ r 9 a~ u ,~ v~ ~ - `n ~ u O > C N z ~° Q.i U V C C v tJ ~~p ( N N ~ U U w i V (S. '~ ~--1 U C~ ~ ~l ~ C (% ;D {~ A 'C ~'" i G. v x ~ ai .; cd ~ ~ 3 ci .~ 'd C7 •~ ai c~v ~ cd °~ .3i ~ °~' c C 00 ~~+. C C C bq M S 1~1 Q ~~ r , IFWI ~i A u ~ ~..i ~, z as L°° O C~ W ~ ,~ C~ 00 L" ~ a C „ N~ w !0 w w y ~" ~ U ~ y Gj N V R ~ h • u V ~ .~ .r a ~ H Lr' ~ t C U ~ -~ e p '.7 -i O~ '~a b0 h o ~ ~c ~ .~ cC4 ~ Y ~` ~ ' U A C C Z L F _ U O C E ~ u " p" y a ~ ccy c`~ E U •cv E ~ ccp O O 'C C b ~' ~ is ~ ~ E .d c A• •~ ~" 8 R~ c°~i c y .~y~ o~ ~9 . ~ ~~ Q •~t%~u `n 3 ~ v ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ `° o ~ ' d ca C E ~ ~ c~ ~ '~ ~ C E ~ ~ N p+ ' ~ W 3N3 R~~ ~ ~= ~°= r~ ~ °~ ~~ c ~~=a~~ '~~s~.~ .~ o ~ '3~ j o ~ ~ ~ ea~o o ca a~ y ~ ~~ °~' ~ °' C0 r ~ e ~ . y o• ~„ 3 c g .r:.o ~ _ •~ •~ ~ y R a+ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ N ~ ~. ~ ~ {~ y 'fir 'C ~ C L ~~ ~ ~ n ^ ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~++ ~ ~ C G ~ V W C ~ ~ O C ( ~ Q. ~ O ~ ~.,, y ~ ~ O ~ .0 Q 4+ CC ~ ~ ~ LO M LC y~ 'k y fn 'd u" + w ~' '6 O C u a~ N ~ Lz.~ 'O ~ 'G N r ~, ~ I~_,' ~, p cCa •R p /~ I L ~ ~3y IWI ~ V •~ ~ ~ •y ~: ~ f t ~ v V ~ 8 (~ ~ • C y V ~ fr Q ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i R ~ V ~ y C ~ ^ ~ Q~ ~ ~ c `~' W 0 ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ O ~ Z y y~ ~ z N Lr.~ cy0 ~ -. a ~ ~ N E ~ y ~ E U QQ N U ~ N ~' ~ ~ ~ o M~ U t3 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ c v ... $ . ea ~: . v V R e0 4 C ~ ~ ~ i SJ al QI ~ ~ v I i ~ C a ~? R 'C ~ O (g ca = a a ~ '~ 6 E ~ 1° o b~ W °' ~o °' .~ v lC i o~o~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ a~ a~ . 3 . ~ 3 0 ~ u `~ o~ y o L 'y B ~ ~ ' ca d O ~ . A ~ A . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. V ~ ~ N C ~ ~ ~ H V N V Q~ ~ ~r ~ _ 3z ca d O O .C ~ ~ 6l lCC ~ W pr ~ 1 ~^ V Z E „ ~~. ~ s~ ~•°~ o S ~; r ~ o ~ o ~ O C C O ~ '~ ~ Z y ~ Q p ~ ~~~ °C C y W y ~ c s O Z O ~ ~ C u ~ ~ ~ L., ~ °~ 'u + O L+ ~ 0O ~,~ V a CC ~ ~. h '0 ~ h V '~ C °J ~ R i 3 w ~ ~ c~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' ° ~ a~ a~ V ~~ ~~..~ ~ .,~ ~ .Cc N~ O _ 9 '7a' _ .p ~~~ ~ _ O~ ~ a f6 ~' r "' C V . ~ F ~ 61 W ~ C C V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ A ~ V ~ /'~~ y ~ A ~ ~ ~ N A C C ~ O Jj N ~„ r C .. ~ ` y °~ 3 as ~ ~ ; ~ °~' ~ ~:~' ~ W z~° ~' a° z~° ~ ~ d ~ 3 O ~ ~ ,~c~- i ~ 'a 'C c ~ a ~~, ~ 3 ~ . ~ ~R ~ 3 ~ c c a c t c o . ~ $. E fA c G C N M 5 xN ~ ~ z ~z a. w ~o ~~ 0 ., w~ O ~ F ~ W ~/ w ~\ r_l W `~ ~, z v '~ O a °o_ « ~ ~ ~~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ a o0 C ~ ° o ~ ~ ~~ o a O H u v ~ ~.." o .~ N O V 'p pp O fA ~d •0 E y C w ~ ~ .~.. C ~` ~ ~ '• '~. _ N ~ O v .y. ~ ~; h O ' ~ y ~ ~ C ~ C ~ o-'i c+ ~ LC y Lam' .+ ~ W O 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ L' ~ ~ ~ 0J ~ ~ ~' ~ E~ O ~~ C1 N V N h V E~° °.u a ~ ~ a ~ `° °'E ~ c ~ d y ~ Op y ~~,~ cC h C C ~ p ~7 d d C~~ . _ ~ ~ ~ y C R ~ U RI ~p ( ~' U N U A 1..~ C c y ~ ~ R '° ~~ c ~ ~ ~a w a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ u oq ~ . ~ e'a ~ ~ o S ~~ • C C v ~ C . p O a~ ~ p O (Qj ? ~ O O ~ ~ ~ u to .~ LO O O L' ~ Q~ {O ~ ~_ C ~ ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~_ •7 ~' bA ~ ~ V ~ i s C_ . ~~+ i7 0~.~ V y O G' C ~ c. .~ y a~ ?~ 6. C ~ l0 ~ ' ~ 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ C ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ C i. ri ~ w ~ aci w ~ of O ~ ` _ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ c v eo ~c~8 .003 a~ c ~ ~ ~••~ h~ ~ 0 ~ ~ V R C 7 V y C. f-i r' E ~ o °~''~ ~ ° ~ O ~o ~¢ a ~ o ~ ~. ~ d ° ~ y v C ' O w ~ O •p p ~ ~ d O •p O p~ .. ~ ~ w y C l 'v C y R . 3 :a ~ 3 ~ . i ~ ~ „ E w a. N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ C C ~ •~ ~ O ~ p c O :°~ a ono ~ a ~ ~ ~ O C w~ 'G ~s ~ ~~ ~, ~ o ~ ~~ ~~° ~~ oYp ~_~_ C C y v' ca c v c C c. as p, On m O g c ~ CO c O~ °' °' ~ °' °' . a `~ ~ ~ ~ R. ° ~ ~ o o C .. h ca ~ ae ~ c _ « e CO l9 C ~ ~ c g y•c ~ C6 C) ~r ~"~~ U .~ c N ~' y ~ v Z~~ 'C h ~ ~ O N~ d 9 a`i Q C p OD N C w '.+ y Z^ R O w O h w C N b ~ N '6 N U 'G ~ C Oq C ' O b_U w k L' ~ ' h O O .h a ~ 5° t. ~ ~ ~ .c C _ C ~ C 8 .~ d '~ C ~ ~ y ~ L y y y C C a a~i ~,, w _ a~i ~ p, a _ o ,,.., a ca ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ew L. ac o ~ _r ~ . , o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l^ 'U Q~ •~ U ~ C O 4.' Q~ ~ y , Q ~, C ~ R Q `~ ~ R 'O .r v Q ~ h M ~ ' .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z" ~ U ~ y v ~; ~ ~ g ~ ~~+ ~ Ln ~ "~, ~ I z~ p y C 7 h r V V ~ Z. ~ :r y. Y O C _ R Z t .~ ~ ci ~ ao .yi axi c a 'd ~ ai ~ ~ w ~ ob b .c ~ 3 R c `~. lCp~ 00 Qom' ~~ r-, a ~ v W "z t~ a> ~ ~O ~ F N i+ ~ ~ c~ ~ y 3 Sn a O O ~ C . ~ ~ ca C ~ O ~ ~ U °'° VVV - U ~U3w R ~ cQ cyp ~ O c O C ~ U bQ ' ~ R. . 'G F" ~ ~ cC .+ w y c~ O ~. y c y C ~ ~ ~ 'S `~ 'O O O O _ 'C.+ ~.+ ~ ~ ~: a V ~ V ~ ~ C Ir'" U C C .n O to ~ h C C. ~, v' y Z1 W ', ~ ~ W v, C ca U ~ ~ 'O C O ca 7 'O .+ h _ ~- O O p _ ~ eq 7 ~ .Y. d ~ W ~ ` .R C v y ~ Q~ y O ~ ~ N r ~ ~ Q~ ~ iiJJ `, ~ R ~~ ~. 4 0 'u E c ~~ ~ ' ca O 'C • ~ ~ O ~ m C °'° `-° ~ °' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 c C ~° fl a 1. b . c ("' y Q C ~ ~O ~--i ~ h ~_ (c[e] Jj U o_A ~ a~ H h ~ ~" O ~ ICJ ~t//j ca c ~V ~ y cn ,~, c a °~ O a~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ooy~ ~ ~9 ~ ~ C •S W R ~ ~ ~ v ,~ O d . C ~ ~ a> oq y ~ h ~+ V O v yy~ d N O. C a~~ O 3 ~ ~ Q> 'G ~~~ R w y C N ~i v, C C ~ .. L~ 'O 'C 7 oA C is CL ~ ~3 ~ ~ 'o ~' u u ~ co ~ ca 'v, ~ ~ d E' Z cya C ~ °~' ~O j a~ c 'a ~" y~ ~ r O ~L+ ~ w r ~ ~ [r y L cy QI v y U c~ W L+ ~ ~ O ._ 3 ~ w, u ~ ~ O. U p, w '0 ~ O e 00 G~ W y u C p„ ~ c v ~ ~ u " ~ . . i a i a w ww d . Oq ~~ y C ~ N ~' "~ ~ L C ~ R Cr L7~ :p y '~ ¢ C C 6 ~ = c6 ~ ~,~ a so ~~a~ a .:; ao F ~ h r ° ~ y 3 co ~ ~° ~ ~ o O 3 z a ¢~ c o ~ 'h o S c . C ~_ .~ C s 5 x~ ;~ v z ,A z N0. ~%, O rl 0 w~ o] F ~ W F y l J Q ~\ W ri A u ~ ~~ ~~ ~a F ~ a y °o V ++ O ~ 1: '~y~, p iG y 3 ~ n 7 A ~ U_ W ~ ~ .r ~ ~ .C 3 Q.~ cvp O C w i~ ca O ~ ~. 'v p ^~ ~.. C y ~- G, ~ ~ 0 ~ C ~ ~ ~ • C ~ ~ G R . ~ c 0 c~cy3 'fl C p. ~ ~ . VJ O C O N p lC w C CN V~ ~ O ~~ ~ N 6^ 7 0 ~ y ~ 'C ~ U N ~. O. rn w~ .U ~ 7 N ~~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ C V '~ ~ L' . 0 7 W ~ (~ C L~ L' ~ YY h C~ ~ C. C C_ ~ ~~ y 0 O~ C Q V O C 7~ ~ ~ ,~ C6 v ~ .VI r. .O . ~ h ~ ~ ~ ° '3 ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ v U C r C ~+ L 3.. 0 d ro 'y 'D C ~ a~ ~ O r ~ + ~ ~ + C ~i ~ ~ ` N i c' ca ~' ~' ~U'' H ~_ i ~ r N ~aL i rG pC C (j CC W . ~ O ~ ~ Vi U h W ~O ~'' ~O a~ ~ ~ C ~ - f/ ~ ~ W v ~ N O ` ° 'O U ca ~ U ~ ~ ` ' V ~ y; U U .. V ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ 0++ C ~rr O U N ~ y r R U ~ ~' ~~ F. ~ ~~ Fr d 0 . ~ ~ ca •~ ~ ~ - . .-Ui ~ y ~ w ~ ~ ~ L+ Ct r 5 W+ V! fi ~ •~ ~ ~i ° ~+ y ° ~ l ~ y ~. 1~ ~ ~ CCC x g x °' ~;~ x~ ~~ ~ x o ~~ x o,a a= a ~= ~3 a3 as a.~o O ~ ~ V ~ U O 3 C C Q .U.. v ~ V H y ~ oq <i N ~~ 'p O ~ ~ U ~ O ~ V~ C • V ~ .C+ 0 N ~ ~U.. ~ ~ ~"i 7 h ~ T ~ ~ CQ ~ V W R ~ ~ ~ ~ L' •4 _ ° ~ C ...i Q~ V I i •~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ . 'O O ~ O 'O N ~ 'O I:' ~ ~ O ° v 'O O O a c~~a ° :: ~ o > c 3 > u Z :: E °' 3 `~ c S o ~~++ to e C c .~ v C c c ~ `~' yy _ .. L" U w h 4 °3°~~ Q r" y p a:~3 d U as U U a~ 4. ch ~o 'v U a~ b w ~ . ~ 3 ~ ~ o ~ ,°p ~ c o °° c , ~ ~ i X U Oq 7 'y 'r7, U V DO U ~+ .~ ~ O~ Q ~ ~ ~y b0 7 W ~~ 4 ~y h ~ O. a ~ O R W x .. u a h , ~ ~~ ~; M ooa v c Q ~ U R O ~ ~ ~. ~ .V ~ C ~ `'¢ ~~.3 ~ ~ ~ ~¢ o $.~ ¢~ Via. ti¢ u c~ C 1..1 C. c II E C H M 5 z ~~ 1~ LW u W `~ z M ~ ~ ~a ~, o N~N r~1 O ~ O C ~ d 00 ~ 3 ~ 6 ~ b ~ out ~ ~ c ~ ~R 6o L' ~ o •°- oov ~~~ o~~ ~r_ ~_oo 'o ~ cC' ~e r o ~:: ~° O a ~,^,~ ~ ° ~a,~ h m : ~ 7 y 1.' O r0 CD ' V F W c~ ~~ LC iVr h O ~ « ~ C ,OO u ~ 2 ev y ~ ^} 'C co U `e~~ O O ~' ff((11 1 u ~ ~ cyv h 04 y .p y ~ ~ ~- a> ~ O O 6j ~.' ~' 'p 'd R ,h ce N ~ Z C Q. w +~ vi d C h ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ur .°r ~ y •~ vy V~ ~ O ~ c0 . N v > ~y i. N .- - C U ~ ~ C (C(» ~+ C ~ O ~C w C~ ~~ '~.C+ O E ~r o ~v ~ ' ~ y' 1 y ¢ Vi ~ G O y y O.. ¢ ~~ y'O C ~~ O•C ~ ~~ `3 6.' t7 Z O bq ~+ ~ y ~ T ^'~ C ~ 7 O r~r ~O ~R'i h 7 a V ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~C+ VL Z' Q~~)++ Vi • V ~ ~ ~ LO O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V h ~ G 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ y 'G ~~" ~' h N v ~ '6 W . ~ _ ~ (~ ~ ~ D ~ y _ ~ ~ ~: ~ Oq ~ ~ ~ U ~ R ~ N ~ Q ~ o `~ ~'~ , Z O ~o O ' ' U°caw U~Z C UO. U~cvf1 UWC.3~(~ U~ .y U ~ •/+ ~ ~ ~ ~ R V R ~ 0 ~ QI ~+ .'+ = U y v O vs O ~ ' "J' V H ~ - r(T~1 Ir ^ ~ W Q t ~ 6 J ~ b~ c.~h •- ~ ~ V ~ 0 ~ F.1 ~ 'p C VI V C C ~ ' _ 'O w C u ~ O 7 7 O O ~ ~ ~ =y ~ z a ~ ~~ ~~~ 0 ~ oo C G~ v O C ~O U y O .O ~ O C y w C ~ ~ y N y O O ~a~ ~ ~ ~ •- y QN~ a ~ u .. ~~ L ~ C N O C ~ ~ r ~ x ~~~ U ai Ln r O o 0.: cd U O c ~ U 3 .a C u L. 1T C C ,w- M 5 a~ .~ c~ z ,~ z a Gc, wO ~ ~" o~ w ~ o~ F N F a a [rte L ~~' W a v v ~a H~ ~, 0 w F W ~w E o ~ cn o o ~n ~ o o `~a' ~ ~ o v~ o ~ za ~ _ ~~ V C `~ ' `~ ' E ~ ~ o 0 o v~ v~ ~ o 0 0 ~n ~ cn o a r V a W ~> ' ~ in Y V 0 0 ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ o a ~y W ~ ~ o e a m E aw S ~ `° 0 ~ o 0 0 0 ~ o ~ o E o 0 0 o v~ a a ~ a ~ Q z w z 0 a F w a z ~' CaA U F ~ a w •~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ oc ~ ~ ~ a a a ~ ~ ea z F ~ O w a q ~ ~ a O z F ~ ~ w F ° ~d ~ `~ z c n a d a ~ a U z o c ~ U ~ ~ w Q ~ ., ~ ~ a ~ ~ H ~ ° °c = ~ H ~ ~ ~ a ~ c ~ ~ ~ 2~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ z a ~ F O ~ S ~ ~ d c~ z ~ w p z ~ a ~ a ~ ~ a. •• v m - ~ a 3 U d eo cs G1 rzi w c7 = .; ~; dC J ~ Z O a z V a U .O a 0 z C CcV V E E ~o z u o ~ ~. sv C C t~ t~ w ~ .~ .~ ~ ~y ~ R F'~ c~ ~~ II c v ~ s c 'c ~~ ~~ ~~ C ~ ~~ ~ ~ r e ~f 5 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AUGUST 1993 VI-38 Chapter 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ^ ^ The following chapter briefly describes the East of 101 Area and the three Plan alternatives included in the impact analysis of the Environmental Impact Report. These alternatives are illustrated and described more thoroughly in Section IV of the East of 101 Area Plan binder. The Area Plan itself, which is included in Section V of the Plan binder, provides a complete description of the policies and conceptual development plan for the preferred Directed Growth Alternative. In addition, information about the East of 101 Area can be found in the existing conditions analysis in Section II of the project binder. In addition to the three Plan alternatives, this section also describes the No Project Alternative in which existing land use regulations would remain in effect in the East of 101 Area. A. The East of 101 Area The East of 101 Area represents an important economic resource to the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. The area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land in the City of South San Francisco east of Highway 101, from the City's northern border with Brisbane to the southern border at San Francisco International Airport. The area accounts for approximately 19,400 jobs, or almost one-half of the City's total employment base. Although the East of 101 Area is largely developed with light industrial, research and development, warehousing, retail, office, and hotel land uses, it includes some of the only significant undeveloped parcels in the City of South San Francisco. Key vacant parcels in the area include the Koll site, the Shearwater site, the Haskins site, portions of the Gateway site, and portions of the Oyster Point Specific Plan area. VI-39 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 PROJECT DESCRIPTION B. The East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan defines new General Plan level land use policies for the East of 101 Area. The overall goal of the East of 101 Area Plan is to recognize the unique character of the area and to guide and regulate development in a manner which protects and enhances the area's resources, while also allowing for appropriate development. The Area Plan will be incorporated into the City of South San Francisco General Plan as the development policies for the East of 101 Area. Thus, the Area Plan supersedes existing South San Francisco plan policy for the area. However, the Area Plan has been prepared to be consistent with the overall goals, policies and objectives for the area and for the City as already contained in the various elements of the City General Plan. C. East of 101 Area Plan Alternatives This section describes the three alternatives that are analyzed at an equal level of detail in this EIR, as well as the CEQA required No Project Alternative. The Directed Growth Alternative is the preferred alternative and is described first, followed by the Planned Commercial Alternative and the Market Oriented Alternative. This EIR assumes that all policies included in the Draft Area Plan would be included in each of the three alternatives. Further descriptions of the alternatives, including land use category maps and tables of buildout land uses, can be found in Section IV of the project binder. The following land use categories are proposed for application in the East of 101 Area. These land use categories are the same in each of the three alternatives, but the areas in which they apply differ. _ • Planned Commercial. This category would be similar to the City's existing category, allowing retail stores, restaurants, hotels and high-end offices, all of which would be subject to design controls. Under all three alternatives, this category would have a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60, which is based on the existing FARs at office buildings such as the Gateway Towers and Tomoe Oyster Point. Light Industrial. This category would allow for a wide range of industrial uses with few design or development controls. It would continue to allow the types of light industrial, warehousing and transportation activities that already occur in the East of 101 Area. VI-40 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION This category has two different Floor Area Ratios in the alternatives, which allows for an examination of the environmental impacts of varying levets of development. In the Market Oriented Alternative, the maximum allowed FAR would be 0.70. In the Directed Growth and Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternatives, this category would have a maximum allowed FAR of 0.50. • Planned Industrial. This category would be similar to the City's existing category, but would be refined to allow a narrower range of non-noxious industrial uses with an emphasis on biotech and flex space. Design controls would ensure aesthetic quality. This category would allow the City to improve the overall quality and mix of uses in the East of 101 Area, while still emphasizing light industrial, flex and research and development uses. Like the Light Industrial category, this category has two different Floor Area Ratios in the alternatives. In the Market Oriented Alternative, the maximum allowed FAR would be 0.60. In the Directed Growth and Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternatives, this category would have a maximum allowed FAR of 0.45. • Coastal Commercial. This category would allow specifically for planned commercial, hotel or office facilities with a coastal orientation, and would occur only in limited areas with prime coastal frontage. The allowed FAR would be 0.60, which is intended to match the FAR found in the Planned Commercial category and in existing office developments. • Airport Related. This category would allow for airport-related uses, consistent with the uses already found in the southern part of the East of 101 Area. Generally speaking, little new development would occur under this category, particularly in the area south of North Access Road. This category would only apply to an area north of North Access Road in the Market Oriented Alternative, in which case it could accommodate a large airport parking structure. • Residential. This category would provide for high-density housing at a maximum of 40 units per acre, including required density bonuses. This category would also allow neighborhood-serving retail uses to support the housing. • Open Space. This category would reserve land for active and passive recreational use. In all three alternatives, it would occur primarily along the coast within the BCDC jurisdiction line, and on publicly-owned open space areas. VI-41 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN E[R PROJECT DESCRIPTION AUGUST 1993 • Mixed Cate og ries. The Directed Growth Alternative and the Market Oriented Alternative would allow for mixtures of the Planned Industrial category with both the Planned Commercial and Coastal Commercial categories. In these areas, identified uses in either category would be allowed, and design guidelines would ensure that the two use categories would be compatible. For environmental review purposes, the higher Floor Area Ratio between the two allowed categories will be used. These land use categories would be applied in the area as described below: 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) This alternative would respond to market forces, but would also direct growth to the most appropriate areas and include land use and design guidelines to ensure the most appropriate development pattern over the long run in the area. Land use allocations of this alternative at buildout are shown in Table 5. This alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative since it most closely reflects the City's preferred ultimate uses for the area, with an emphasis on a mixture of commercial, tight industrial and flex uses. It would result in the upgrading of a significant portion of the area, while also allowing for industrial and manufacturing uses in a portion of the area without unnecessary controls. This alternative does not include a housing component, which would be difficult to serve wish municipal services and could conflict with existing industrial and biotech uses in the area, and with the local noise environment. The Directed Growth Alternative's land use plan designates the majority of the northern half of the East of 101 Area as Planned Industrial. Coastal Commercial land use categories are applied to the Oyster Point Marina and within the Fuller-O'Brien site. Planned Commercial uses are predominantly along South Airport Boulevard and within the Gateway and Shearwater properties. Light Industrial uses are located in the southern half of the East of 101 Area. San Francisco International Airport property is designated as Airport Related. The majority of open space is along the bayshore of the area. VI-42 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 5 DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE LAND USE BREAKDOWN .Category Allowed FAR Area <(Acres) Existing Building Area (Sq. Ft) Potential New Building (Sq. Ft.) Total Building Area at Buildout (Sg.Ft.) Planned Commercial .60 92 1,685,760 887,131 2,572,891 Light Industrial .50 241 4,634,457 1,522,664 6,157,121 Planned Industrial .45 520 8,801,189 3,231,665 12,032,854 Coastal Commercial .60 61 714,060 1,190,073 1,904,133 Airport Related N/A 116 N/A N/A N/A Mixed Planned Commercial/ Planned Industrial .60 92 649,623 1,852,230 2,501,853 Mixed Coastal Commercial/ Planned Industrial .60 46 378,710 663,583 1,042,293 Open Space .00 66 22,100 0 22,100 Gateway Specific Plan 1.25 96 1,211,570 4,003,700 5,215,270 Total 1,330 18,097,469 13,351,046 31,448,515 2. Planned Commercial Alternative This alternative would make the East of 101 Area a high end retail, office and commercial area, with the goal of increasing employment and revenues for the City and making the area more visible and attractive on a regional basis. Commercial areas would be particularly important along Highway 101, South Airport Boulevard, and Gateway Boulevard. Land use allocations of this alternative are shown in Table 6. This alternative is not the preferred alternative because it would designate more land for high end uses than the market could support, and because it would include a residential component, which would be difficult to serve with municipal and retail services and could conflict with the area's noise environment and with other uses in the area. VI-43 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION AUGUST 1993 Table 6 PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE LAND USE BREAKDOWN Category_ Allowed FAR Area- (Acres) Facisting Building Area ' (~ Ft) Potential New Building (Sq. Ft.) Total Baiidiog Area at Buildout (Sq.Ft.) Planned Commercial .60 319 4,183,716 4,388,001 8,571,717 Light Industrial .50 234 4,631,667 1,407,127 6,038,794 Planned Industrial .45 461 8,167,216 2,626,786 10,794,002 Coastal Commercial .60 107 1,092,770 1,853,656 2,946,42b Airport Related N/A 116 N/A N/A N/A Residential 40 du/ac 28 0 1,100 units 1,100 units Open Space .00 66 22,100 0 22,100 Total 1,330 18,097,469 10,275,569 28,372,998 Plus: 1,100 residential units The Planned Commercial Alternative's land use plan designates less of the northern half of the East of 101 Area as Planned Industrial. Coastal Commercial land use categories are applied to the Oyster Point Marina and within the Fuller-O'Brien site, similar to the Directed Growth Alternative. The Koll site is designated as residential. Planned Commercial uses are located along South Airport Boulevard and within the Gateway and Shearwater properties. These commercial uses are the emphasis of this Plan alternative. Light Industrial uses once again are located in the southern half of the East of 101 Area. San Francisco International Airport property is designated as Airport Related. The majority of open space is along the bayshore of the area. In analyzing the Planned Commercial Alternative, it is assumed that some flex space will replace existing development. In most cases, the analysis of impacts contained in this Environmental Impact Report does not consider this new development, as uses already exist and create demands for services and generate traffic in the East of 101 Area. However, development which is assumed to replace existing uses is analyzed in the fiscal analysis, which is VI-44 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 7 MARKE'T' ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE T.AND USE BREAKDOWN Category Allowed FAR Area (Acres) heisting Building Area '(Sq. Ft.) Potential New Building (Sg. Ft_) Total Building Area at Buildout (Sq.Ft.) Planned Commercial .60 51 1,133,590 365,955 1,499,545 Light Industrial .70 380 6,777,678 4,580,615 11,358,293 Planned Industrial .60 548 9,360,406 5,433,929 14,794,335 Coastal Commercial .60 61 714,060 734,018 1,448,078 Airport Related N/A 131 49,290 N/A ~ 49,290 Residential 40 du/ac 85 40,345 3,388 units 3,388 units Maed Planned Commercial/ Planned Industrial .60 8 0 173,961 173,961 Open Space .00 66 22,100 0 22,100 Total 1,330 18,097,469 11,288,478 29,345,602 Plus: 3,388 new residential units This 40,345 would be removed in order to construct new residential units. ~~A 600-car pay for parking structure could be accommodated north of North Access Road along South Airport Boulevard in this alternative. Development south of North Access Road is determined by the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan. included in Section IV of the Area Plan binder, because this new development will generate additional revenues for the City. 3. Market Oriented Alternative This alternative would be dictated primarily by market forces, and would leave landowners and developers the maximum possible freedom to develop their land as they pleased, with relatively few land use controls. Land use allocations under this alternative are shown in Table 7. This alternative is not the preferred alternative because it would not upgrade the image of the area or encourage development of higher-end uses such as biotechnology. It would include a residential component, which would be VI-45 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN E[R PROJECT DESCRIPTION AUGUST 1993 difficult to serve with municipal and retail services and could conflict with other uses in the area. The Market Oriented Alternative's land use plan designates most of the northern half of the study East of 101 Area as Planned Industrial. Coastal Commercial land use categories are applied to the Oyster Point Marina. Both the Koll site and the Shealwater site are designated as residential. Planned Commercial uses are located along South Airport Boulevard and within the Gateway property, but to a lesser degree than the other two Plan alternatives. Light Industrial uses once again are located in the southern half of the East of 101 Area, including the Fuller-O'Brien site and the Gateway/Harbor Transitional area. San Francisco International Airport property is designated as Airport Related. The majority of open space is along the bayshore of the area. 4. No Project Alternative Analysis of the No Project Alternative is also required under CEQA. For the purposes of this EIR, the No Project Alternative assumes that existing City of South San Francisco policies and regulations governing the area would continue to control development. The existing General Plan would continue to guide the development area, as illustrated on Figure 3 of the Existing Conditions Report. Land use categories would not include the Light Industrial land use category, the Coastal Commercial land use category, or the Airport Related category. The land use categories would be far more general and development would include the office, research and development, and industrial uses similar to those already in the area. Residential uses would be possible under the existing zoning in the Planned Commercial Zone (with a conditional use permit) and possibly in the Shearwater Specific Plan area where one sub-area is designated for a use "to be determined" with a possibility of residential use. The Planned Commercial category would generally occur in the west portion of the East of 101 Area, and would also occur in the Oyster Point Marina. Planned Industrial land uses would continue to occur in the remaining sections of the area. Open Space lands are located along the bayfront. The East of 101 Area would continue to be industrial in nature, with some hotel and retail uses along the Highway 101 corridor. Much of the area would be expected to continue to contain "flex" buildings that can be used for light industry, warehousing, research and development or office uses. VI-46 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 8 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE LAND USE BREAKDOWN Category Allowed FAR Area (Acres) Existing. Building'Area (Sq. Ft.) Potential New Building (Sq. Ft.) Total Building Area of Buildout (Sq.Ft) Planned Commercial (P-C) 2.Oa 205 3,568,358 14,338,446 17,906,804 Planned Industrial (P-I) 2.Oa 930 13,209,481 67,974,125 81,203,606 Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan 2.Oa 44 108,060 3,959,170 4,067,230 Gateway 1.25b 96 1,211,570 7,132,808 8,344,378 Shearwater N/A` 52 0 2,719,652 2,719,652 Open Space 0 3 0 0 0 Total 1,330 18,097,469 96,124,201 114,221,670 a Assumes 50% lot coverage with up to 50 feet height (4 stories). b As per Gateway Specific Plan. ` No FAR is applied since the Shearwater Specific Plan designates the square footage that can be built on the site. The Specific Plan's program has a total FAR of about 1.20. There would most likely continue to be no predominant land use patterns in the East of 101 Area, and various businesses and land use conditions would most likely remain scattered. There would generally be no limits on development potential through Floor Area Ratios, since none exist now except in the Shearwater and Gateway areas. Projected land uses in the area under the No Project Alternative are described in Table 8. Since there are no prescribed FARs in the Area now, this table assumes an FAR of 2.0 in most areas, which is equal to 50% lot coverage of a four-story building. This development pattern is allowed by existing zoning. The allowed development would be almost four times greater than that allowed under any of the other alternatives. VI-47 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN E[R AUGUST 1993 PROJECT' DESCRIPTION D. 2003 Intermediate Development of Alternatives According to the results of the market study, which makes up Section III of the Plan Binder, market demand for development in the East of 101 Area is unlikely to require full buildout under any of the alternatives for more than 20 years. It is impossible to make accurate projections of actual market demand for periods of time exceeding 20 years, so it is also impossible to know exactly when the Area Plan or any of the alternatives would be fully developed. However, improvement planning and environmental review require projection of some level of development over time, in order to allow for projections of traffic capacity and municipal service needs. In this EIR, and in the Draft Plan and the fiscal analysis for the three alternatives, aten-year horizon through 2003 has been selected as the planning timeframe. This ten-year horizon allows for relatively accurate projection of probable development under expected market conditions, which in turn allows for calculation of traffic and fiscal impacts. In this EIR, 2003 development of each alternative is referred to as "intermediate development," and is used for projection of traffic impacts. This section describes how the 2003 intermediate development scenarios were developed, and what levels of development they contain. 1. Intermediate Development Calculations The intermediate development scenarios for each alternative were generated by assigning the market demand for individual uses projected in the market analysis to a series of key vacant and underutilized sites in the East of 101 Area. For the purposes of the assignments, the following assumptions were. made: Demand for each use was taken from the market analysis. The amounts of land consumed for each use and the building square feet they represent are shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9 of the Alternatives Analysis in Section N of the Plan Binder. Each parcel was assumed to accommodate the use that would be likely to create the highest return to the owner under projected market conditions. For this analysis, uses were assumed to have the following ranking: office was assumed to be most desirable, followed by flex, hotel, retail and residential. VI-48 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 9 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN ALTERNATIVES INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT (2003) Land Use Directed Growth Alternative` Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Market Oriented Alternative Office 318,500 sq. ft. 316,200 sq. ft. 316,200 sq. ft. Retail 392,000 sq. ft. 392,000 sq. ft. 376,300 sq. ft. Hotel 254 rooms 508 rooms 508 rooms Flex 1,068,400 sq. ft. 117,600 sq. ft. 1,068,400 sq. ft. Residential - 1,100 units 2,064 units Total 1,778,900 sq. ft. 254 hotel rooms 825,800 sq. ft. 508 hotel rooms 1,100 units 1,760,900 sq. ft. 508 hotel rooms 2,064 units ` Also includes full buildout of the Genentech Master Pian, which is not included in the figures in this column. Each use was assumed to go to the most attractive available site designated for that use in the year during which it is projected to occur. A separate ranking of site attractiveness was created for each use, with a general preference given to large vacant sites near similar uses. The resulting intermediate development calculations showed a certain amount of development of a given type on each key site in the study area in 2003. These projections are theoretical, and are unlikely to represent the actual development that will occur in the East of 101 Area. However, the projections provide an accurate enough development scenario to allow for projection of traffic and fiscal impacts that would result from the Plan. 2. Intermediate Development Results The projected intermediate development in 2003 under the three alternatives is shown in Table 9. The alternatives would have the following characteristics for intermediate development: • All three alternatives are projected to result in similar amounts of office and retail space through 2003. The Planned Commercial Emphasis and Market Oriented Alternatives would each allow for approximately 500 hotel rooms, which would occur VI-49 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 PROJECT DESCRIPTION on two hotel sites. The Directed Growth Alternative is projected to result in only one hotel, since other potential hotel sites would be more likely to be used for office or flex space development. • The Directed Growth and Market Alternative would result in similar amounts of flex commercial space, which includes warehouses, light manufacturing space, research and development facilities, and offices, with a total of about one million square feet of space in each alternative. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would result in significantly less new flex space, since it would not designate many sites for new flex development. Under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, flex development would occur on an infill basis, and would replace existing uses in the area. Residential development would not be allowed under the Directed Growth Alternative. Under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, 1,100 new residential units would be expected through 2003, which would represent full buildout of the allowed residential component. Under the Market Oriented Alternative, approximately 2,100 would be projected through 2003, with some additional residential capacity after 2003. In the traffic analysis of this EIR, these intermediate development projections are used to project traffic impacts. For the traffic analysis, a 10 percent increment in additional traffic has also added been added to these intermediate development projections to account for infill that would occur on sites other than the key sites described above. The intermediate development projection for the Directed Growth Alternative also includes full buildout of Genentech's proposed Master Plan by 2003, which is added to the other development shown in Table 9. This represents a conservative assumption, since portions of the Genentech buildout would be included in the baseline traffic conditions reviewed in the Existing Conditions Report, in the basic 2003 projections above, and in the additional 10 percent increment. Buildout of the Genentech Master Plan would not be allowed under the proposed Area Plan unless a Master Plan allowing an increased Floor Area Ratio in the Genentech area was approved by the City under Plan Policies LU-14 and LU-15. For comparison purposes, buildout of Genentech's Master Plan is not included in the intermediate development projections for the Planned Commercial Emphasis or Market Oriented Alternatives, but conclusions regarding the Master Plan's likely impacts on these alternatives are included in the text. VI-50 Chapter 4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following chapter contains an analysis of identified environmental issues related to the four alternatives. -The existing environmental setting is described in the Existing Conditions Report in Section II of the Project binder. Criteria of significance are first identified, followed by specific impacts that would result if the Plan is adopted, identification of Plan Policies that mitigate those impacts, and additional mitigation measures, if any. 1. Determination of Significance Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment (Public Resources Code 21068). The guidelines implementing CEQA direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. 2. Issues Addressed in the EIR The following environmental issues for the four alternatives are addressed in this chapter of the Environmental Impact Report: • Policy and Regulations • Land Use • Visual and Design Factors • Population, Employment, and Housing • Jobs/Housing Balance • Transportation and Circulation • Noise • Hazardous Materials • Geotechnical Factors • Biological Resources VI-55 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MrTIGATION MEASURES • Infrastructure • Municipal and Retail Services • Open Space and Recreation • Air Quality • Water Quality • Cultural Resources 3. Format of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Sections Each issue section generally includes criteria of significance for assessment, impacts and mitigation measures for the three major alternatives, and a qualitative discussion of the No Project Alternative. Criteria of significance are identified at the beginning of each issue section in bullet format. These criteria determine if the project would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts and mitigation measures are identified for each of the- three major land use alternatives. The discussion includes impacts that would result from implementation of the alternatives, and from cumulative development under the alternatives in conjunction with other development in the City of South San Francisco and the region. Since many of the impacts identified for the Area Plan are "cumulative" for the City or the region as a whole, mitigation of additional regional cumulative impacts is not necessary for some issues. The mitigation measures identified for the significant impacts may be required by the City under CEQA to mitigate the impact to less than significant levels. In addition, some potential impacts would be mitigated by policies which would be adopted as part of the Area Plan. These policies are identified and their affect on potential impacts ace described. For each project alternative, impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively. Impact numbers begin with a reference to the impact section, such as "LU" for Land Use or "AIR" for Air Quality. The numbering system also distinguishes between impacts and mitigation measures associated with specific alternatives for the Area Plan as follows: • D: Directed Growth Alternative. • P: Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. • M: Market Oriented Alternative. VI-56 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES Thus, an air quality impact related to the Directed Growth Alternative would be numbered AIR-D1. An air quality impact identified for the Market Oriented Alternative would be numbered AIR-M1. In addition, the "No Project" Alternative, as required by CEQA, is briefly analyzed for each impact category. A discussion of the expected impacts related to the No Project Alternative is included in the end of each section of this chapter. Typically, an Environmental Impact Report also contains information on the existing environmental setting. This information is provided in the Existing Conditions Report in Section II of the East of 101 Area Plan binder, and is included in the Environmental Impact Report by reference. VI-57 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AUGUST 1993 VI-58 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POLICY AND REGULATIONS A. Policy and Regulations For the purposes of this section, significant policy impacts are those which would: • Conflict with existing development patterns that already exist in the area. Limit development potential on a property beyond the reasonable use of that property. Conflict with agreements that bind the City of South San Francisco to specific development patterns. The East of 101 Area Plan is to be adopted by the City of South San Francisco as the General Plan for the area of the City east of Highway 101 as reflected in Policy IM-1 of the Implementation Element. The current land use categories and policies applicable to the area will be superseded by the Area Plan. City zoning and other regulations will be revised to reflect the Area Plan. Therefore, inconsistencies with the existing General Plan, specific plans or zoning are not considered to be significant effects of the Plan. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Allowed Uses. The Directed Growth Alternative, like the other two alternatives, was developed through careful analysis of existing land uses in the area. Because most of the East of 101 Area is already developed, and many vacant sites are surrounded by so much existing development that their future use can be assumed, the future land use in most areas is given and no drastic changes in land use are proposed. b. Allowed Densities. Allowed densities in the East of 101 Area would generally be reduced by the Area Plan. Maximum allowed FARs are included in the Plan to allow for projections of maximum Plan buildout levels, which allow for planning of needed roadway, sewer and other infrastructure capacity. VI-59 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POLICY AND REGULATIONS In most portions of the East of 101 Area, some existing buildings exceed the allowed FARs of the new land use categories. A total of about 160 (40 percent) of the 393 parcels in the East of 101 Area are estimated to be built to FARs that exceed those allowed under the Area Plan's land use categories. Of these, about 100 parcels have current FARs that exceed allowed FARs by more than 0.10, and most of these are older industrial buildings without adequate parking, loading facilities or landscaping. The current Gateway Specific Plan will still be applicable in the East of 101 Area, therefore, it's FARs still apply. Allowed FARs for each land use category have been derived based on studies of modern development that matches each category. The allowed FAR of .60 for the Planned Commercial category is based on the existing FARs at office buildings such as the Gateway Towers and Tomoe Oyster Point. Retail stores would be unlikely to meet this FAR, since they generally require greater parking than can be accommodated at this density. Hotels are allowed to have a higher FAR under the Area Plan, since hotels currently have some of the highest FARs in the planning area, at about 1.2 to 1.6, as reflected in Policy LU-4b. Coastal Commercial densities parallel those of the Planned Commercial category. The maximum allowed FAR of .45 in the Planned Industrial category is similar to those in the Rouse, Pointe Grande and Edgewater Business Parks, which have FARs of approximately .36, .40 and .50 respectively. The maximum FAR for Light Industrial development is set at .50 to allow slightly denser development than in the Planned Industrial category, since the Light Industrial area does not require as much landscaping or circulation area on-site. The Shearwater Specific Plan, also allows for development which exceeds the Floor Area Ratios stipulated by the Area Plan. The Directed Growth Alternative allows for a FAR of 0.60 for the Shearwater property, while allowing for increased FARs for hotel uses with Planning Commission approval. The current Shearwater Specific Plan allows for a FAR of about 1.2 on the site as a whole, and over 2.0 in some locations. However, development under the Shearwater Specific Plan has not been pursued and, in light of the current market conditions reflected in the Market Study, does not seem feasible at this time. In addition, the development scenario under this alternative allows for greater flexibility for new development proposals for the Shearwater site. Maximum allowed Floor Area Ratios for the land use categories apply only to new construction. Where existing buildings on a site exceed the allowed FAR, they may be replaced or remodeled with buildings up to the existing FAR on the site, provided that all new construction meets all other policies of the Area VI-60 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POLICY AND REGULATIONS Plan. The existing square footages of all buildings in the area have been considered in the traffic and service provisions of the Area Plan. Thus no impact on parcels that currently exceed the allowed FARs would occur. c. Housing Element. The City's House Element identifies 24 affordable housing sites which may be used to meet its remaining "fair share" housing need of 2,376 units by 1995, as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). One of the sites identified is the Koll site at Sierra Point (Site 19 on Figure 26 of the Housing Element). To maintain consistency with the Area Plan, this site shall be removed from consideration for affordable housing as reflected in the Area Plan. Noise, land use, and municipal service conflicts related to housing in the East of 101 Area are substantial enough to prohibit the development of housing in the area. These impacts are discussed in more detail in the appropriate sections of this report. With these revisions, the Area Plan would remain consistent with the policies outlined in the Housing Element. d. Regional Plans and Policies. In addition to local policies, there are a number of regional plans and policies with which the Area Plan should be consistent. These include the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan of the Multi-City Transportation System Management Agency and environmental policies of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The uses allowed under the Area Plan would not be considered beneficial uses as defined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). However, the alternatives would not result in greatly different land uses from what is existing, but would for the most part increase the amount of development. Therefore, the RWQCB would most likely not be concerned with the growth alternatives as a whole, but rather how each change in land use would impact the area water quality. Each development project shall be individually analyzed for water quality control, as outlined in Policies PF-10 through PF-12 of the Area Plan. The Regional Transportation Plan addresses transportation improvements to regional facilities. The improvements to the circulation system outlined in the Area Plan are not regional in nature and, therefore, are not addressed by the RTP. Improvements outlined in the Area Plan are not in conflict with the RTP, therefore, no impacts occur. VI-61 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN E[R AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POLICY AND REGULATIONS The Bay Conservation and Development Commission has jurisdiction over projects in the San Francisco Bay and projects within 100 feet of its shoreline in the East of 101 Area. The BCDC policies, which are outlined in the San Francisco Bay Plan, are intended to protect the Bay as a natural resource for the benefit of present and future generations and to develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of bay filling. These policies are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of the Existing Conditions Report. The policies of the Area Plan outline access improvements to the shoreline and policies which protect the natural resources of the Bay. With these improvements and policies, no conflicts are anticipated. Several other departments have permitting jurisdiction over the East of 101 Area. These include the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. Disturbances to more than one acre of wetlands require review and permitting from the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, disturbance to a streambed, channel or canal requires permitting from the Department of Fish and Game. All of these agencies have adopted a no net loss policy for protection of wetlands. These agencies also have jurisdiction over State and federally listed species. These requirements are further discussed in Section J of this chapter. The Area Plan would not conflict with these regulations, therefore there are no significant impacts associated with the Plan. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Allowed Uses. Unlike the Directed Growth Alternative, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative includes a high density residential land use category, which would also allow for neighborhood commercial uses. The Planned Commercial zoning category of the South San Francisco zoning ordinance does not allow for residential uses without a conditional use permit. The residential zones of the current zoning ordinance do not allow for neighborhood commercial uses, therefore, the residential sites under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative could not be appropriately rezoned. A new zoning category would have to be developed to reflect the intent of the Residential land use of the Area Plan. With this exception, the land use categories of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative are similar to the Directed Growth Alternative. b. Allowed Densities. As with the Directed Growth Alternative, this alternative would place maximum FARs on development in the East of 101 Area. Approximately the same number of parcels have existing development on them that would exceed the allowed FARs as in the Directed Growth VI-62 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POLICY AND REGULATIONS Alternative. A discussion of the rationale for the allowed FARs is included in the discussion of the Directed Growth Alternative. As with the Directed Growth Alternative, this alternative would include a policy allowing reconstruction of existing buildings that exceed the allowed FARs, provided that new construction meets all other policies of the Area Plan. Thus, no impact on parcels that currently exceed the allowed FARs would occur. This alternative would also replace the Gateway Specific Plan, which currently allows an FAR of 1.25. This alternative would allow for the same general types of uses as the Gateway Specific Plan, including commercial and research and development uses. Existing development in the Gateway area, including the Gateway office towers and the Rouse office park, have FARs that are consistent with FARs allowed by the alternative, so no significant impact would occur. c. Housing Element. The City's Housing Element identifies 24 affordable housing sites which may be used to meet its remaining "fair share' housing need of 2,376 units by 1995, as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). One of these sites identified is the Koll site at Sierra Point. Since this site is designated residential through this Area Plan alternative, it is consistent with the current Housing Element without any revisions. d. Regional Plans and Policies. Impacts for this alternative associated with regional plans and policies would be similar to those discussed for the Directed Growth Alternative. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable and no conflicts or impacts are expected. 3. Market Oriented Alternative a. Allowed Uses. Like the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, this alternative would include a high density residential land use category and would also allow for neighborhood commercial uses. The Planned Commercial zoning category of the South San Francisco zoning ordinance does not allow for residential uses without a conditional use permit. The residential zones of the current zoning ordinance do not allow for neighborhood commercial uses; therefore, the residential sites under the Market Oriented Alternative could not be appropriately rezoned. Anew zoning category would have to be developed to reflect the intent of the Residential land use of the Area Plan. With this exception, the land use categories of the Market Oriented Alternative are similar to the Directed Growth Alternative. VI-63 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POLICY AND REGULATIONS b. Allowed Densities. As with the Directed Growth Alternative, this alternative would place maximum FARs on development in the East of 101 Area. However, the Light Industrial category would receive a maximum FAR of 0.70, and the FARs allowed under the Planned Industrial category would be 0.60. Under this alternative, only about 80 parcels would exceed the allowed FARs, which is about half of that of the other two alternatives. As with the other alternatives, parcels exceeding the allowed FARs would generally be older industrial buildings without adequate parking, loading facilities or landscaping. A discussion of the rationale for the allowed FARs is included in the discussion of the Directed Growth Alternative. As with the Directed Growth Alternative, this alternative would include a policy allowing reconstruction of existing buildings that exceed the allowed FARs, provided that new construction meets all other policies of the Area Plan. Thus no impact on parcels that currently exceed the allowed FARs would occur. Impacts related to the Gateway Specific Plan would be the same as for the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, and would not be significant. c. Housing Element. The City's Housing Element identifies 24 affordable housing sites which may be used to meet its remaining "fair share" housing need of 2,376 units by 1995, as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). One of these sites identified is the Koll site at Siena Point. Since this site is designated residential through this Area Plan alternative, it is consistent with the current Housing Element without any revisions. d. Regional Plans and Policies. Impacts for this alternative associated with regional plans and policies would be similar to those discussed for the Directed Growth Alternative. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable and no conflicts or impacts are expected. 4. No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the current specific plans, zoning, and General Plan would remain applicable to the East of 101 Area. The current zoning ordinance of the City of South San Francisco and the zoning categories within the area are consistent with the General Plan and land use categories. No impacts to current policies and regulations would occur. Development would be evaluated on a project by project basis and, judging by VI-64 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POLICY AND REGULATIONS prior development, larger planned projects would be governed by individual specific plans. No maximum FARs would be set in the area under the No Project Alternative. Thus no parcels would exceed allowed FARs, which would alleviate a minor policy issue. However, the City would have no structure limiting future development in the area, and could not plan as well for circulation and infrastructure improvements. VI-65 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POLICY AND REGULATIONS AUGUST 1993 ~-(~ AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USE B. Land Use The East of 101 Area Plan would have a significant impact with regard to land use if it would: • Allow internally inconsistent land uses within East of 101 Area. • Introduce new land uses that would conflict with established uses within or adjacent to the East of 101 Area. • Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. • Induce substantial growth. New land uses can also constitute a significant effect on the environment in indirect ways. Visual impacts, demands for public services, generation of additional traffic and noise, and other changes can be cause by proposed new land uses, thereby generating environmental effects. Such effects are analyzed in other sections of this EIR. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The Directed Growth Alternative allows for the maximum development of over 10 million additional square feet of commercial and industrial development at buildout. This additional growth could result in a total of 28 million square feet of development. This large amount of development could result in circulation and sewage treatment shortfalls in the area, as described in Sections F and K of this chapter. However, Policy LU-12 requires the City to track these potential impacts from increased density, and to limit growth if unmitigable effects on traffic or sewage capacity would occur with new development. Thus, no significant impact would occur from the Plan in this respect. No residential development is proposed under the Directed Growth Alternative, so potential incompatibilities between residences and industrial land uses would be avoided. Allowed land uses in this alternative have been selected to be compatible with one another, so no impacts regarding land use adjacency would occur under the land use plan. VI-67 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USE 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative allows for the development of over 10 million additional square feet of commercial and industrial development at buildout. This additional growth could result in a total of 28 million square feet of office, commercial, and industrial development. In addition, this alternative allows for 1,100 new high-density residential units on the Koll property at Sierra Point. With an average household size of 2.91, these housing units would result in a new population of 3,200 attributable to the East of 101 Area. Impact LU-Pl: Development of residential uses in the East of 101 Area would create land use conflicts with the local noise environment associated with Highway 101 and the San Francisco International Airport. As explained in the Noise chapter of the Existing Conditions Report, a noise level of less than 65 dB is generally considered compatible with residential uses. Average noise levels generated from the Airport do not exceed 65 dB on the Koll property. However, residents in the vicinity of airports have complained about aircraft noise at levels of less than 65 dB, and some studies show that some people are highly annoyed by noise at levels of 55 dB or less. In addition; average noise levels generally do not reflect the excessive single event noise levels generated by aircraft. Some people may be particularly sensitive to high single-event noise levels, which occur in the area when the Airport uses the Visual Shoreline Departure Route. In the East of 101 Area, the majority of single event aircraft sound levels are around 78 dBA but can reach up to 95 dBA. The Koll site would be developed with high density residential development. This site is at the most northerly portion of the East of 101 Area Plan and is exposed primarily to noise emanating from the freeway and the railroad, although maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by aircraft will reach 84 dBA outside of these units. The proposed criterion for residential use is that maximum instantaneous noise levels not exceed 50 dBA indoors and that the CNEL not exceed 45 dBA indoors. Standard residential construction would not provide the noise reduction required to meet these criteria. This would be a significant unavoidable impact. Outdoor noise levels will exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA across the site. While it would be possible through site planning to provide outdoor areas shielded from the freeway and the railroad, it will be impossible to reduce the outdoor noise VI-68 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USE generated by aircraft overflights. These impacts could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Because of the history of complaints received by the Airport from residents located in similar outdoor noise environments it is recommended that, although interior noise levels can be mitigated, residential development be discouraged in the East of 101 Area. The noise section of this document further analyzes the impacts associated with the noise environment in the area. The allowed land uses in this alternative, with the exception of residential, have been selected to be compatible with one another, so no impacts regarding land use adjacency would occur under the land use plan in areas not including residential development. 3. Market Oriented Alternative The Market Oriented Alternative allows for the development of over 11 million additional square feet of commercial and industrial development at buildout. The additional growth of the Market Oriented Alternative could result in a total of 29 million square feet of office, commercial, and industrial development. In addition, this alternative allows for 3,388 new high-density residential units on the Shearwater property and the Koll property at Sierra Point. With an average household size of 2.91, these housing units would result in a new population of 9,860 attributable to the East of 101 Area, the greatest of all three alternatives. Impact LU-M1: Development of residential uses in the East of 101 Area would create land use conflicts with the local noise environment associated with Highway 101 and the San Francisco International Airport. Aircraft and residential conflicts are similar to those of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. The Koll site and Shearwater site would be developed with high density residential development. These sites are at the most northerly portion of the East of 101 Area Plan and are exposed primarily to noise emanating from the freeway and the railroad, although maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by aircraft will reach 84 dBA outside of these units. The proposed criterion for residential use is that maximum instantaneous noise levels not exceed 50 dBA indoors and that the CNEL not exceed 45 dBA indoors. Standard residential construction would not provide the noise reduction requisite to meet these criteria. This would be a significant unavoidable impact. VI-69 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USE Outdoor noise levels will exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA across the site. While it would be possible through site planning to provide outdoor. areas shielded from the freeway and the railroad, it will be impossible to reduce the outdoor noise generated by aircraft overflights. These impacts could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Because of the history of complaints received by the Airport from residents located in similar outdoor noise environments it is recommended that, although interior noise levels can be mitigated, residential development be discouraged in the East of 101 Area. The noise section of this document further analyzes the impacts associated with the noise environment in the area. Impact LU-M2: Residential development on the Shearwater property may create land use conflicts with established and planned industrial and research and development uses in the East of 101 Area. The residential development on the Shearwater property may create perceived conflicts with uses allowed under the Planned Industrial category. The existing biotech industries have identified a desire to keep residential development from the East of 101 Area due to this perceived conflict. However, much of the concern about biotech firms is due to a lack of knowledge of the industry. In addition, trucking may create conflicts with residential development on the Shearwater property. Generally, trucks associated with distribution are noisy, unattractive, and create the impression of an unclean environment. Many times, distribution facilities operate in the early mornings and evenings, and could cause a potential annoyance to residences. Most of these facilities are located in the Light Industrial land use, but some are also located in the Planned Industrial land use. Examples include Greyhound Exposition Services (formerly Cost Plus) and various smaller developments that could be accommodated by the Sanrio/Bee's building or the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes development. These developments would use Oyster Point Boulevard as an accessway, which is located directly in front of the Shearwater property. There would be little concern about potential land use conflicts of residences on the Koll property due to its physical separation from the rest of the area. Mitigation Measure LU-M2: Any residential development on the Shearwater site should include landscaped open space buffers adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard and surrounding industrial uses, to screen residential development from traffic on Oyster Point Boulevard and views of commercial and industrial operations to the south of Oyster Point Boulevard. VI-70 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USE The allowed land uses in this alternative, with the exception of residential, have been selected to be compatible with one another, so no impacts regarding land use adjacency would occur under the land use plan in areas not including residential development. 4. No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, land in the East of 101 Area is likely to continue in its current use, with pressure for incremental changes as allowed by existing General Plan categories and zoning. High density development could occur in the future, especially on currently vacant lands such as Shearwater and within the Gateway Specific Plan area, due to infill industrial and office development. Due to the presence of hazardous materials and market conditions, development is likely to occur slowly and on aproject-by-project basis. The current allowable development in the East of 101 Area is greater than that allowed under any of the three Area Plan alternatives. Thus, the potential impacts on traffic and sewage treatment resulting from high levels of development in the area would be greater under the No Project Alternative than under any of the Plan alternatives. Residential land uses would also be allowed in the area under the current zoning, and the existing General Plan does not specifically prohibit housing. Specifically, the existing Planned Commercial zoning category, which is concentrated in the western portions of the East of 101 Area, allows multi- family housing with approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Vacant properties which could develop residential uses under this category include the Koll property. In addition, the Shearwater Specific Plan also may allow residential development. Residential uses would cause conflicts with the neighboring Airport and industrial and research and development land uses, as described for the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative and the Market Oriented Alternative above: VI-71 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USE AUGUST 1993 VI-72 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPAC'T'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS C. Visual and Design Factors This chapter review impacts of the proposed Plan on the visual character of the project site and its vicinity. The project would have a significant impact if it would: • Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. • Substantially obstruct significant public views and view corridors. Be in non-conformance with public policies regarding visual and project design criteria. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Development in the East of 101 Area will continue to be commercial and industrial. Overall, development would be low rise, with dense coverage and visible parking lots. Hotel developments would typically be more high rise and located along South Airport Boulevard, visible from Highway 101. Street and entry improvements would be part of the East of 101 Area Plan along South Airport Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue. Development policies in the northern portion of the East of 101 Area would encourage the creation of campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and other high quality multi- tenant office or warehouse developments. Each planned development within the northern portion of the area would be encouraged to create an attractive and independently workable development, while relating with and respecting surrounding development. The southern portion of the East of 101 Area allows for development which requires good accessibility and less stringent development standards than required in the northern portion of the area. More emphasis would be put on creating smaller individual uses which work with the surrounding district as a whole, rather than independent entities within themselves. VI-73 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS Commercial uses would be encouraged along the perimeter of the area, serving the employees within the East of 101 Area, recreational users, and visiting shoppers and business people. Development along the bay shore would have a coastal emphasis and would take advantage of the visual qualities of the San Francisco Bay. Development along Highway 101 is to emphasize visitor serving uses, such as hotels and motels, and would be visually attractive, creating a positive first impression of the East of 101 Area and, thus, encouraging development and use of the area as a recreational and business center. Motorists arriving in the East of 101 Area on East Grand Avenue are currently greeted by the entry feature at the Gateway project, which conveys a clear sense of entry to the area as a whole. Similar entry features will be developed on Oyster Point Boulevard near the new Highway 101 off-ramps, and at the southern end of South Airport Boulevard, just north of the intersection with the North Access Road cut-off. The landscape treatments will utilize elements such as plant materials, earth berms, low walls or fences, lighting, paving, sculpture, and signage, to create distinctive, high quality gateways to the area. Streetscape improvements through the Area Plan will include a coordinated street tree program along both sides of the roadways and a consistent and well- designed pedestrian sidewalk system. On both Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, adequate right-of-way either exists or could probably be acquired to also allow installation of landscaped medians. The current median on Forbes Boulevard is tall, which limits sight distances, and it does not break in areas that correspond to driveway openings. It will be replaced with a lower, safer and more visually appealing treatment. Design elements will be coordinated and used to create a cohesive, unique image for the planning area. With these improvements and the design criteria of the Area Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would include the identical land use categories as the Directed Growth Alternative, with the addition of Residential. Site specific categories would vary, but general design quality would remain the same. The visual characteristics of the alternatives would be similar and the guidelines and policies of the East of 101 Area Plan would still be applicable. Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated. VI-74 AUGUST 1993 3. Market Oriented Alternative EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS The Market Oriented Alternative would include the identical land use categories as the Directed Growth Alternative with the addition of Residential. Site specific categories would vary, but general design quality would remain the same. The visual characteristics of the alternatives would be similar and the policies and guidelines of the East of 101 Area Plan would be applicable to the Market Oriented Alternative. Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 4. No Project Alternative The visual environment of the East of 101 Area would generally remain in its current condition, and the controls and design guidelines in the Area Plan would not be implemented. Entries into the area lack defining qualities and vacant lands create a negative first impression of the area. In addition, chain link fences, above ground utility lines, and older industrial developments create an area that generally has little visual interest. It would be expected that these characteristics would remain in place, and might actually proliferate, without the East of 101 Area Plan. Development with a higher visual quality would only occur in individual integrated developments such as Genentech and the Oyster Point Marina, but the overall visual character of the area would not be improved. VI-75 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES VISUAL AND DESIGN FACTORS AUGUST 1993 VI-76 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING D. Population, Employment, and Housing This section analyzes the direct population, employment, and housing impacts of the four alternatives under consideration for the East of 101 Area Plan. Additional discussion of population and employment impacts as they relate to air quality can be found in Section N of this EIR. The East of 101 Area Plan would have a significant impact to population, employment and housing if it would result in any of the following: • Create employment and population growth rates which would outpace the ability of the City to provide required services. • Fail to provide housing for households with a range of income levels. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Population. This alternative includes no new housing units in the East of 101 Area. Therefore, no new residents would be added to the City's population as a direct result of future development in this area. b. Employment. The Directed Growth Alternative would permit substantial new employment generating development in the East of 101 Area. Under this alternative, South San Francisco's employment base would increase by 33,738 jobs, for an increase of 78 percent at buildout. This increase is projected to occur over an indefinite period of time. In the years 1993 to 2003, the actual increase is projected to be 3,583 jobs, for an annual growth rate of 0.7 percent. This growth rate would be less than one half the employment growth rate experienced by the City of South San Francisco between 1980 and 1990. Employment growth rates less than those experienced in previous years would make it possible for the City to keep up with the need to provide new services, as shown in more detail in the Municipal Services section of this EIR. These new jobs would potentially add new residents to the region, even though housing would not be allowed in the East of 101 Area. An analysis of the jobs/housing balance is contained in Section E of this EIR. VI-77 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING c. Housin . The Directed Growth Alternative would add no new housing units in the East of 101 Area. For this reason, the Directed Growth Alternative would have no impact on the City of South San Francisco's housing stock. The Directed Growth Alternative would result in the elimination of the Kolb site as a potential site for low and moderate-income housing, as it is currently shown in the City's Housing Element. With this elimination, however, the City would still have adequate sites to meet its fair share of affordable housing, as shown in the Housing Element. Recent revisions to the Housing Element in association to the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment show an approximate increase of 2,000 units in the City's potential housing opportunities. This potential will be effective when the City has a formal agreement with SamTransBART for the subway construction of the BART extension through the EI Camino Corridor. Even without the El Camino Corridor, the City's Housing Element identifies adequate sites for housing to meet the City's housing needs. d. Summary. The Directed Growth Alternative would have no significant impacts on the City's population, employment, or housing, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Population. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would permit construction of up to 1,174 new housing units. Though the City had an average household size of 2.9 in 1990 according the U.S. Census, this report assumes a household size of 1.7. Multi-family units such as those proposed under the alternatives generally house fewer children than single family units, which are prevalent in the rest of South San Francisco. In addition, rental and condominium units generally accommodate a greater proportion of single person households. Therefore, a household size typical of condominium and apartment units is used. The assumed household size of 1.7 would add 1,996 new residents to the East of 101 Area at buildout, which would result in a 3.7 percent increase over South San Francisco's existing population base. Most of this population increase would occur in the period of time between 1993 and 2003, when 1,870 new residents would be added. The population growth rate during this time period would be 0.3 percent per year, well below the 1.0 percent annual population growth rate experienced by the City between 1980 and 1990. Population growth rates less than those experienced in previous years would make it possible for the City to keep up with demand for most new public services, as discussed in the Municipal Services section of this VI-78 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING EIR. Added population would create a significant unavoidable impact on schools, which is also described in the Municipal Services section. b. Employment. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would permit new development which could potentially increase employment in the East of 101 Area by 24,903 jobs. This would represent a 58 percent increase over the existing South San Francisco employment base. Of the total potential increase in jobs, it is projected that 3,534 new jobs would be added between 1993 and 2003. This would represent an average annual growth rate of 0.7 percent, significantly below the 1.8 percent growth rate experienced by the City between 1980 and 1990. Employment growth rates less than those experienced in previous years would make it possible for the City to keep up with the need to provide new services, as would also be the case with the Directed Growth Alternative. These new jobs would potentially add new residents to the region in addition to those allowed in the East of 101 Area. An analysis of the jobs/housing balance is contained Section E of this chapter. c. HOUSinE. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would permit development of 1,174 new multifamily housing units in the East of 101 Area, increasing the 1990 base by 6.2 percent. Almost all of the potential housing units would be developed by the year 2003, when 1,100 housing units are projected to be developed under this alternative. For the 1993 to 2003 time period, the rate of housing unit growth would be 0.5 percent per year. The addition of 1,174 new multifamily housing units to .South San Francisco's existing base would decrease the proportion of single-family housing units in the City. At Plan buildout, this proportion would decline from approximately 70 percent to 66.percent. In accordance with Redevelopment law, 15 percent of the housing units would be affordable to moderate and low income households, including six percent of the units affordable to very low-income households with no more than 50 percent of the area median income. Thus this alternative would both increase the City's overall supply of housing, and provide increased housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. These would be beneficial impacts which would not occur under the Directed Growth Alternative. VI-79 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING d. Summary. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would have no significant adverse impacts on the City's population, employment, or housing, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 3. Market Oriented Alternative a. Population. This alternative would permit construction of up to 3,180 housing units in the East of 101 Area, resulting in an increase of 5,406 new residents at buildout (assuming an average household size of 1.7). This would represent a ten percent increase from the City's 1990 population base of 54,312 residents. By 2003, the East of 101 Area population increase would be 3,509 persons. Between 1993 and 2003, the population growth rate resulting from the Market Oriented Alternative is projected to be 0.6 percent per year.. This is below the 1.0 percent average annual population growth rate experienced by the City of South San Francisco between 1980 and 1990. City representatives have indicated an ability to provide new services in response to the projected growth rates, as discussed in the Municipal Services section. The only exception would be in terms of school facilities and services, as discussed in the Municipal Services section of this report. b. Employment. The Market Oriented Alternative would ultimately generate 27,192 new jobs in the East of 101 Area. This would represent an increase of 63 percent over the existing South San Francisco employment base. Between the years 1993-2003, the Market Oriented Alterriative is projected to add 3,960 new jobs, representing an annual growth rate of 0.8 percent. The projected growth rate for the 1993-2003 period would be less than the 1.8 percent annual employment growth rate experienced by the City of South San Francisco between 1980 and 1990. Employment growth rates less than those experienced in previous years should make it possible for the City to keep up with the need to provide new services. City representatives have indicated the ability to provide expanded services in response to the anticipated East of 101 Area employment growth rates. These new jobs would potentially add new residents to the region in addition to those that could reside in the East of 101 Area under the Directed Growth Alternative. An analysis of the jobs/housing balance is contained in Section E of this EIR. c. Housin At buildout, the Market Oriented Alternative would add a total of 3,180 housing units to the City of South San Francisco housing stock. VI-80 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING This would represent a 17 percent increase in the number of housing units in South San Francisco. Between 1993 and 2003, the Market Oriented Alternative is projected to add 2,064 new housing units. The housing stock growth rate during this period would be 0.9 percent per year. All housing added to the East of 101 Area under this alternative would be multi-family units. This would decrease the proportion of single-family housing in the City from approximately 70 percent in 1990 to approximately 60 percent at Plan buildout. In accordance with Redevelopment law, 15 percent of the housing units would be affordable to moderate and low income households, including six percent of the units affordable to very low-income households with no more than 50 percent of the area median income. Thus, additional housing opportunities would be created for low and moderate income households. These would be beneficial impacts which would not occur under the Directed Growth Alternative. d. Summacy. The Market Oriented Alternative would have no significant impacts on the City's population, employment, or housing, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 4. No Project Alternative The Area Plan would limit development potential when compared to the potential under current categories. Despite this, employment generation would probably be less without the Area Plan since improvements to roadways, infrastructure, recreation facilities and aesthetic qualities would not occur. Vacant lands, such as the Shearwater property, the Koll property, and portions of the Gateway property could possibly remain vacant for several years. Without the Plan, uses which would be beneficial to the East of 101 Area and its employment base would not receive the same kind of encouragement that the East of 101 Area Plan provides. Without the Area Plan, the Koll property would remain designated as an affordable housing site by the City of South San Francisco Housing Element, and development of housing on this site could occur. This would improve housing opportunities in the City, but the use of this site for housing would result in noise conflicts with the San Francisco International Airport and Highway 101, and possible land use conflicts with industrial and research and development uses in the East of 101 Area, as described in the Noise and Land Use sections of this EIR. In addition, it would be extremely difficult to provide school facilities and services for the students residing on the site, as described in the Municipal Facilities section of this EIR. VI-81 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING VI-82 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES JOBSMOUSING BALANCE E. Jobs/Housing Balance This section assesses the jobs/housing balance under the three East of 101 Area Plan alternatives. The concept of jobs/housing balance is explained in the Existing Conditions Report. Employment and resident generation under each alternative is analyzed in Section D of this EIR. As explained in the Existing Conditions Report, South San Francisco currently has ajobs/employed residents ratio of 1.57, as compared to San Mateo County, which has an overall jobs/employed residents ratio of 0.90. This indicates that South San Francisco has a considerably higher number of jobs than employed residents while most other communities in San Mateo County have fewer jobs than employed residents. San Mateo County's 0.90 jobs/employed residents ratio indicates that even under the best of circumstances, at least one in ten employed San Mateo County residents must travel outside of the County to work. Were it not for South San Francisco's surplus of jobs, many more County residents would likely have to travel outside of the County to work. Thus, it is evident that South San Francisco is an important source of jobs for the County's overall jobs/employed residents balance. For this reason, it is appropriate to evaluate the impacts of the future development in the East of 101 Area with regard to the County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio, rather than to merely analyze the impacts at the local level. The East of 101 Area Plan would have a significant impact on the jobs/housing balance if it would have an adverse effect on the County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio. The following sections present the impacts of the three East of 101 Area Plan alternatives. The three alternatives are analyzed with regard to their effect on the overall County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio. Also, for purposes of comparison, this analysis discusses each alternative's internal jobs/employed residents ratio and the resulting City-wide jobs/employed residents ratio for the year 2003 and for the buildout potential. VI-83 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES JOBSMOUSING BALANCE 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Because the Directed Growth Alternative would not permit any housing in the East of 101 Area there would be no increase in employed residents. At the same time, this alternative would result in an increase in employment in the East of 101 Area. It is projected that 3,583 new jobs would be added in the East of 101 Area by 2003, and that the area could potentially accommodate 33,738 new jobs at buildout. With no new employed residents to balance against the increased employment, there would be no internal balance between new jobs and employed residents in the year 2003. On a City-wide basis, the addition of new employment without adding new employed residents results in a increase in the jobs/employed residents ratio from the existing 1.57 to 1.70. At buildout, as in the year 2003, the Directed Growth Alternative would not provide any housing to balance against the projected increase in jobs. Adding 33,738 new jobs and no new employed residents in the East of 101 Area would change the existing City-wide jobs/employed residents ratio to 2.79. Adding substantial new employment and no new employed residents to the East of 101 Area would add to the existing surplus of jobs in South San Francisco. This is not unexpected, since, as discussed earlier, South San Francisco functions as a job center for other communities in San Mateo County which have fewer jobs than employed residents. Even though this alternative would add to the already existing local surplus of jobs, it would not be considered to have an adverse impact on the County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio, as described below. To assess the impact of future job generation in the East of 101 Area on the overall jobs/employed residents balance in San Mateo County, new jobs in the Area must be considered within the context of total County employment. This analysis assumes that employment projections for San Mateo County calculated by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) includes new employment growth in the East of 101 Area. The difference in employment growth among the three alternatives merely represents a different rate at which South San Francisco will capture a share of total County employment growth. Thus, the number of jobs to be added in the East of 101 Area under the Directed Growth Alternative do not represent an overall change in the San Mateo County employment growth projections over the short- to medium-term, but merely a change in the proportional share of that growth. Under this framework, ABAG's projections for San Mateo County indicate that the overall County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio would improve, and VI-84 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES JOBSMOUSING BALANCE would reach a balance sometime between 2000 and 2005. The new jobs which would be attracted to the East of 101 Area during this time period would contribute to achieving this balance, thus indicating that this alternative would have no adverse impact on the County-wide jobs/employed residents balance. According to ABAG, the County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio appears to stabilize at anear-perfect 1.01 between 2005 and 2010. By definition, the employed residents who would make up this equilibrium would reside in San Mateo County, indicating that there would also be a balance between jobs and housing in the County at that time. Beyond the 2000-2005 time period, it is not possible to say with accuracy what part the East of 101 Area might play in the makeup of the County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio, since projections have not been prepared for the number of new jobs that would be in the East of 101 Area for this time period. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would potentially provide up to 1,174 new housing units in the East of 101 Area. New employed residents who would live in this housing are projected by multiplying the number of new housing units by the current average of employed residents per South San Francisco resident (0.51). The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative is projected to attract approximately 949 employed residents to the East of 101 Area by the year 2003, with a total potential of 1,013 new employed residents at buildout. At the same time, it is projected that under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, approximately 3,534 new jobs would be added to the East of 101 Area by 2003. Ultimately, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative could accommodate up to 24,903 new jobs in the Area. Based on these data, the internal jobs/employed residents ratio would be 3.72 in 2003, and by buildout would climb to 24.58. On a City-wide basis, the jobs/employed residents ratio would increase to 1.64 by 2003, and to 2.39 at buildout. Again, these calculations assume no additional development in other parts of the City. Adding substantial new employment and comparatively fewer new employed residents to the East of 101 Area would add to the existing surplus of jobs in South San Francisco. Even though this alternative would add to the already existing local surplus of jobs, the new jobs created would not be considered to have an adverse impact on the County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio, for the reasons discussed above in regard to the Directed Growth Alternative. VI-85 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES JOBSMOUSING BALANCE This alternative would also add new employed residents to the area in the housing on the Koll site. As mentioned in the section discussing the jobs/employed residents impacts of the Directed Growth Alternative, the ABAG projections indicate that San Mateo County will make up for its current lack of jobs in relation to employed residents sometime between 2000 and 2005. The ABAG projections did not, however, consider that South San Francisco might redesignate East of 101 Area land previously designated for non-residential uses to allow future housing construction. If this occurs, San Mateo County as a whole might attract more residents (and more employed residents) than previously projected by ABAG. This could result in a slight decline in the projected County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio for the 2000 to 2005 time period. The more likely scenario is that while South San Francisco's share of new employed residents might be greater than projected by ABAG, other communities increases in new employed residents might be less due to competition with South San Francisco. The result would be little or no net County-wide increase. 3. Market Oriented Alternative Like the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, the Market Oriented Alternative would allow new housing units to be built in the East of 101 Area. This alternative would accommodate a maximum of 3,180 new housing units at buildout. Based on these estimates of new housing units, there would be an increase of 1,781 employed residents under the Market Oriented Alternative by the year 2003, and up to 2,745 by the time the Area reached buildout. The Market Oriented Alternative would be projected to add approximately 3,960 new jobs to the East of 101 Area by the year 2003, and up to 27,192 by buildout. From these increases in employed residents and jobs, the Market Oriented Alternative would create an internal jobs/employed residents ratio 2.22 by the year 2003. Adding the increases in jobs and employed residents to existing City-wide jobs and employed resident counts yields aCity-wide jobs/employed residents ratio of 1.61. At buildout under the Market Oriented Alternative, the East of 101 Area would have an internal jobs/employed residents ratio of 9.91. This alternative, without accounting for development in other parts of the City, would result in aCity-wide jobs/employed residents ratio of 2.32. Adding substantial new employment and comparatively fewer new employed residents to the East of 101 Area would add to the existing surplus of jobs in VI-86 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES JOBSMOUSING BALANCE South San Francisco. But even though this alternative would add to the already existing local surplus of jobs, the new jobs created would not be considered to have an adverse impact on the County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio, for the reasons discussed above in regard to the Directed Growth Alternative. This alternative would also add new employed residents to the area in the housing on the Koll and Shearwater sites. As mentioned in the section discussing the jobs/employed residents impacts of the Directed Growth Alternative, the ABAG projections indicate that San Mateo County will make up for its current lack of jobs in relation to employed residents sometime between 2000 and 2005. The ABAG projections did not, however, consider that South San Francisco might redesignate East of 101 Area land previously designated for non-residential uses to allow future housing construction. If this occurs, San Mateo County as a whole might attract more residents (and more employed residents) than previously projected by ABAG. This could result in a slight decline in the projected County-wide jobs/employed residents ratio for the 2000 to 2005 time period. The more likely scenario is that while South San Francisco's share of new employed residents might be greater than projected by ABAG, other communities increases in new employed residents might be less due to competition with South San Francisco. The result would be little or no net County-wide increase. 4. No Project Alternative The Planned Commercial zoning designation of the area currently allows housing in the East of 101 Area with a conditional use permit, and the Shearwater Specific Plan could also potentially accommodate housing. If housing were to occur in the area, the jobs/housing ratio could come more into balance in the City and, therefore, become more out of balance for the County. However, if housing were to occur in the area, it would cause land use and noise conflicts, as outlined in other sections of this report. In addition, industrial uses and hazardous waste sites could deter this residential development. Under the No Project Alternative, it is expected that the increase in jobs would be more than this increase in housing. Therefore, since more jobs than employed residents would probably be added in the area, the County's ratio of jobs to employed residents would then come more into balance. Thus, while South San Francisco's surplus of jobs in comparison to housing would increase, the effect within the County would be to provide a better balance. VI-87 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES JOBSMOUSTNG BALANCE AUGUST 1993 ~-~ AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MTI'IGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION F. Transportation and Circulation In determining the impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan on the circulation system, an impact is considered significant if it would cause the following conditions: An increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the circulation system. Level of Service E or worse on roadways in the area. LOS D is shown as the minimum acceptable level of service in the Area Plan Policy CIR-1. Level of Service F freeway operations. LOS E is the minimum acceptable service level for this segment of Highway 101 according to the San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan. Level of service is a qualitative description of roadway operations ranging from Level A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to Level F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. This analysis of the circulation and transportation system studies impacts all three alternatives at buildout and at an intermediate level of development in 2003, as described in the Project Description. Projected development in 2003 was analyzed because the maximum allowed development under the alternatives would be unlikely to occur for an indefinite number of years. Planning for traffic improvements in the area is tied to the projected 2003 development levels, since these would be more likely to occur in the East of 101 Area in the foreseeable future. The baseline roadway system was used as the foundation from which impacts are assessed. The number of lanes on each roadway segment, the intersection lane configurations, the traffic control devices and the other components of the transportation system for baseline conditions are contained in Chapter 9 of the Existing Conditions Report of the East of 101 Area Plan. VI-89 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. Travel Demand Forecasting Process All three land use alternatives call for increases in development that will produce increases in travel to, from, and within the area. The magnitude and distribution of travel produced by the proposed development is estimated using a process that incorporates four steps: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, (3) mode split, and (4) trip assignment. Travel forecasts are made for the morning and evening commute periods, since they represent the time periods with the greatest travel demand. This four-step process is presented in this section. a. -Trip Generation. The volume of trips produced by and attracted to the East of 101 Area for each of the alternatives was estimated in the trip generation procedure. The number and allocation of newly generated trips was determined by applying appropriate trip generation rates to the increases in development on various parcels throughout the East of 101 Area. The trip generation rates were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation manual and from surveyed rates for Genentech, one of the primary employers in the area. The selected rates for the specific land uses and for the more general land use categories are presented in Table 10. As indicated, the rates for commercial/retail uses were adjusted to account for pass-by and captured trips. Pass-by trips represent vehicles that are already on the roadway system and "stop by" the retail establishment as part of a longer trip. Captured trips represent very short trips between complementary land uses that are confined to the Plan Area. b. Trip Distribution. In the trip distribution procedure newly generated trips are distributed to the transportation system in accordance with the probable directions of approach and departure to and from the area. Because employment-related development predominates the East of 101 Area, the peak directions of traffic are inbound during the AM peak hour and outbound during the PM peak hour. The City of South San Francisco is a member of the Multi-City Transportation System Management (TSM) Agency. This agency conducted an employee transportation survey in 1992 which ascertained employee home zip codes for employees in the East of 101 Area. This information was used to project the major directions of approach and departure for the nonresidential trips. The major directions of approach and departure for residential uses were based on employment location data for South San Francisco residents from the 1990 census. The directions of approach and departure for residential and nonresidential trips are presented in Table 11 and shown on Figure 1. VI-90 a~z wwo ~F ~~a wz~ O F Ca o ~ O ~ O ¢ZEQ., w a ~o a a .~- u F a ~ F a H~ L 0. F V V` a _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L' C C rn N M ~ V• .-. N ~p N N ~ , cr ~O v vai N ~ ~ v~`i ~ h h 0. 0 F .. ., c ., . ,~ o ,~ c O ~.. Y G` \/ O i ~ \ p ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ M O`p ~ s . ?a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ r~+ C .~ ~ R pppp O .N-i ~ ~ pp O M ~ 0~0 p 8 ~ p F .-i .-i p .-. .: p .r ~ ~ ~ C7 d y M V M l~ O O ~ N VVy O F,n O O ~,, .7 ~--~ C ~--i er .-. . i .-r !-; x o LPL ~ .~ ~ •- °' ~ CL. ~ N ~ ~~`, h tM+I ~ ~ 4 r C G C C C O C ~ ~ O ar N ~ ~~• ,~ ~ ~ N ._. ~C ~ x 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ Y ~ i ~ o. d ~' ~ ti p O o H H ~ 0 i 0 ~ o 0 0 ~ o z ca . H~ U C ~ .. u L ~ . ~ d ~ N ~ lC . d o ~ E N ~ ~, ~ U ~ U ° F~1 ~ ° e '~ ~ ~ c c ~ w ~ ,~ U N H ~ ca cQ ~ ~ R C O d ~; y C CL ~ R, G4 w c:. ' , O rx en .~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ , v; x_ l/i ~ ~ W ~ U O 0 ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ h V ~ ~ ~ •V ~ f.n ~ r. h ' 'L rl O y " C O ~ ~ ~ i N ~ U _ ~ ~ y ~ d o a~i C ~ a~i w ~ .a ~ c a d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V V a .a a U rx ~ ~ Z V Q cv N p «, ~ ~' c a~ w w H 6~ Ir ~ y N V 7 c0 ,a a O ~ 00 ;o c _ ^' `~ O C ~ V ~ O `~ O ~O ~ ~'' ; a o ~ ~o 0 p 7 cC w h ~ 7 ~ ,~. c ~ w ~~~ h ~ y a~~+Ze ~ ~~ C h ~~ ~~~ v ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ b~+ v ~~~~0 a L O O "' ~ ~ O O 55V~~1 S5V~~I ' ~ V ~ ~ 2525 o a~ ~.a R y ~. o. 0 0 o n w~~ ~ ~Nr D` h V ~~+ W W ~ ~ ~ W ~ O O ~ w ~ coO co N d ~ N N~ 7 ~ N y c~C c~O y - R 7 ~ V y ~ A ~ y R ~ ~ O O ~ '0 C rC v y O :+ 'fl 'D w ~ 'O L ~ ~a~3~~~a ""' N M O h o\ 5 4 N Not to Scale entiol Uses/ Residential Uses o~` EAST OF 1~1 ~. AREAPI.AN City of Soufh San Francisco FIGURE 1 Major Directions of Approach and Departure B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 11 MAJOR DIRECTIONS OF APPRneru sun n~n,.nT.Tr... 'Direction -----~ ~ Residential`Uses ~.~.u~a va`ai Nonresidential Uses U.S. 101 Corridor -North 32% 36% U.S. 101 Corridor -South 68% 33% I-380 Corridor -West 0% 20% Local Area -West 0% 11% c. Mode Split. A majority of the existing trips to the East of 101 Area are made via single-occupant automobiles. According to the Multi-City TSM Agency survey, area employees currently use the following modes: drive alone (80%), vanpool/carpool (14%), SamTrans/Muni (4%), and CalTrainBART (2%). These mode split percentages correspond to an average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.18.1 Transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) measures are being mandated by law. Regulation 13, Rule 1, Trip Reduction Requirements for Large Employers (those with over 100 employees), was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) on December 16, 1992. According to this adopted rule, large employers in San Mateo County must meet the AVR objective of 1.35 by 1999. Therefore, there will be increased use of vanpools/carpools, employer-operated shuttle buses, bicycling, and other types of trip reducing measures such as telecommuting in the East of 101 Area. The trip generation rates in Table 10 include a small percentage of travel (less than five percent) on alternate modes. To account for additional travel on alternate modes (other than the single-occupant automobile) and trip reducing programs as mandated by the adopted rule, reductions were made to the number of new vehicle trips assumed to approach and depart the East of 101 Area under each alternative. The reductions were based on the survey results, projected increases in TDM/I'SM use, and the availability of alternate modes in the four travel corridors. The number of new vehicle trips approaching/ departing the area from/to the U.S. 101 corridor were reduced by 25 percent. The number of new vehicle trips approaching and departing the area from/to the west locally and along the I-380 corridor were reduced by 20 percent. " AVR is calculated by dividing the number of people arriving at a site by the number of automobiles and vans. An average occupancy of 3.0 for carpools/vanpooLs was used in this calculation. VI-93 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 12 VF.i-ii(:I,E TRIP GENERATION BY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour band Use Alternative/ Development Level Ia Out Total to Out Total Directed Growth Intermediate (Year 2003) 2,170 440 2,610 1,170 1,730 2,900 Buildout 14,560 2,430 16,990 4,340 13,860 18,200 Planned Commercial Emphasis Intermediate (Year 2003) 1,020 600 1,620 950 1,210 2,160 Buildout 9,710 2,140 11,850 4,320 10,440 14,760 Market Oriented Intermediate (Year 2003) 2,380 1,110 3,490 1,520 2,450 3,970 Buildout 11,300 3,030 14,330 3,770 11,180 14,950 The existing adopted rule applies only to large employers. However, it will affect both existing and new employers with over 100 employees. Since the existing and future mix of employers by size is not known, the reductions were applied only to the new trips. It is assumed that the magnitude of new trips by small employers that should not be (but are) reduced in these calculations will be offset by the number of existing trips by large employers that should be (but are not) reduced. d. Trip Assignment. The numbers of AM and PM peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the three alternatives and two development levels are summarized in Table 12. All three of the alternatives generate between 14,000 and 15,000 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour under Buildout conditions. The AM peak-hour trips vary between 12,000 and 14,500. Under the intermediate level of development, the Market Oriented Alternative generates the highest number of trips, followed by the Directed Growth Alternative. The vehicle trips were assigned to the roadway system via a computerized assignment technique. The area was first divided into 34 traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The number of added vehicular trips and their associated paths to and from each TAZ were then estimated on the basis of the added development potential, appropriate trip generation rates, directions of approach and departure, and mode split reductions. VI-94 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 2. Directed Growth Alternative a. Plan Buildout Impacts Following is an analysis of the Directed Growth Alternative at buildout of the Area Plan. Development allowed under the Area Plan is summarized in Table 1 in Section IV of the Plan binder. (1) Intersection Impacts. The impact of buildout of the Directed Growth Alternative on the baseline roadway system was evaluated with intersection level of service calculations. The resulting volumes are presented in Figure 2. Level of Service D is the minimum level of acceptable operations for intersections. The levels of service were evaluated for 26 intersections located within or adjacent to the plan area for both AM and PM peak-hour conditions. Most of the intersections are either signalized or planned to be, with only four under stop- or yield-sign control. For the intermediate development levels, different level of service calculation methods were used based on the type of control. All intersections were assumed to be signalized under buildout conditions. There are four types of traffic control used at the intersections analyzed under intermediate development levels in this study: (1) traffic signals, (2) one or two-way stop signs, (3) one or two-way yield signs, and (4) all-way stop signs. The level of service calculation methods selected for these types of intersections are described below. Signalized intersections, those controlled by traffic signals, were evaluated using a modified version of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Circular 212 Planning methodology, which bases level of service on the volume-to-capacity ratio for the critical turning movements. Following the procedure historically used for traffic studies in the Plan area, lane capacity adjustments were incorporated into the analysis of intersections that would otherwise operate at LOS C or worse. Intersections controlled by one- and two-way stop signs were analyzed using the methodology outlined in the Transportation Research Board's 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Because of the applicability of this method to intersections under yield-sign control, the one yield-sign controlled intersection included in this study was analyzed using this same methodology. This methodology cannot, however, be applied to intersections that are controlled by stop signs at all approaches. The all-way stop-sign controlled intersections were evaluated using the Transportation Research Board's Circular 373, "Interim Materials on VI-95 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Unsignalized Intersection Capacity methodology. The level of service criteria for these three analysis methodologies are included in Appendix B. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for buildout conditions for the Directed Growth Alternative are presented in Table 14. Under buildout conditions, approximately half of the intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels. Under the buildout level of development, the transportation system impacts are so severe that improvements to the transportation system to mitigate them would be difficult to implement. Improvements to the roadway system that would be required to improve operating conditions would include: • Eight-lane Oyster Point Boulevard from Bayshore to Marina • Four-lane Gull Road • Six-lane Dubuque Avenue from new 101 Ramps to Oyster Point • Four-lane Bayshore Boulevard from SB 101 off-ramp (Scissors) to Oyster Point (three southbound lanes) • Four-lane Sister Cities/Hillside Boulevard west of Bayshore • Widen or restripe the flyover to southbound 101 from Dubuque Avenue to accommodate two lanes • Triple left-turn channelization at southbound Bayshore Boulevard at Oyster Point Boulevard • Triple left-turn channelization at northbound Highway 101 off-ramps at Dubuque Avenue • Triple left-turn channelization at westbound Oyster Point Boulevard at Dubuque Avenue • Triple left-turn channelization at northbound Gateway Boulevard at Oyster Point Boulevard • Triple left-turn channelization at southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard (Scissors) • Two-lane flyover to eastbound Oyster Point from southbound Highway 101 • Six-lane East Grand Avenue from Dubuque to Grandview • Four-lane East Grand Avenue (minor) with three eastbound lanes from 101 Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue (major) • Four-lane Grandview Drive from East Grand to Point San Bruno • Four-lane Littlefield Avenue from East Grand to Utah VI-96 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION • Triple left-turn channelization on southbound South Airport Boulevard at Grand Avenue • Three-lane eastbound East Grand Avenue from South Airport Boulevard to Dubuque • Four-lane eastbound East Grand Avenue (major) from East Grand (minor) to Harbor • Five- or six-lane South Airport Boulevard (three southbound lanes) • Five- or six-lane Utah Avenue (three westbound lanes) • Triple left-turn channelization on westbound Utah Avenue at South Airport Boulevard • Intersection signalization at southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard (Scissors) • Intersection signalization at East Grand Avenue at Littlefield Avenue • Intersection signalization at southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Produce Avenue. These improvements would require extensive right-of--way acquisition and would be prohibitively expensive to construct. They also do not conform to the City of South San Francisco's policies regarding growth and development in the East of 101 Area. The City does not want to support the use of the single-occupant automobile and does not want the Area to include a "sea of asphalt." In lieu of providing infrastructure, the City of South San Francisco could also mitigate the impacts by requiring increased use of alternate transportation modes, providing incentives for increased development intensities near transit stations, and reducing the building potential of the three alternatives. Rather than requiring mitigation of this impact, the City would institute Policy LU-12 of the Area Plan, which requires the City to track development for its impacts on roadway systems. Once the available capacities are used, the City will re-evaluate East of 101 Area land use categories, and may limit the future development of the area. (2) Freeway Impacts. The projections of future travel demand under buildout of the Directed Growth Alternative were similarly applied to the segments of Highway 101 adjacent to the East of 101 Area. The evaluation of freeway operations was based on levels of service associated with the volume- to-capacity ratio for mainline traffic, as suggested in the Transportation VI-97 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Research Board Highway Capacity Manual. The Level of Service criteria for freeway operations are shown in Appendix B. Level of Service E was selected as the minimum acceptable standard of operations for freeway segments. Freeway operations were analyzed in each direction on four segments of U.S. 101. These segments are between the Sierra Point Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard interchanges, between the Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue interchanges, between the Grand Avenue interchange and South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue ramps, and between the South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue ramps and the I-380 interchange. Under buildout conditions, a majority of the freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS F, as shown in Table 15. On some segments the volume is projected to exceed the capacity by 20 to 30 percent. Highway 101 capacity improvements would be required for Area Plan buildout, but Plan Policy LU-12 would require the City to consider other development policies before buildout impacts occurred. b. Intermediate Ii~acts (2003). In order to analyze the Area Plan prior to buildout, an analysis of the intermediate impacts in 2003 was conducted. The intermediate development scenarios for each alternative were generated by assigning the market demand for individual uses projected in the market analysis to a series of key vacant and underutilized sites in the East of 101 Area. A 10 percent increment in additional traffic was also added to account for infill that would occur throughout the East of 101 Area, and buildout of the Genentech Master Plan was included in the intermediate development scenario for the Directed Growth Alternative only. Amore detailed explanation of the methodology used in developing the intermediate development scenarios can be found in Chapter 3. Levels of development under intermediate development scenarios are summarized in Table 6, Chapter 3. At intermediate development levels, the Directed Growth Alternative would contain over one million square feet of flex space, approximately 300,000 square feet of office space, 400,000 square feet of retail space, and 254 hotel rooms. (1) Intersection Impacts. Traffic volumes that would result from projected 2003 development under the Directed Growth Alternative are shown in Figures 4 and 5, and the results of the intersection level of service analysis are summarized in Table 16. Impact CIR-D1: Acceptable levels of service would be exceeded at eight East of 101 Area intersections with development of the Directed Growth Alternative through 2003. VI-98 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 16 shows that operations at eight of the key intersections are projected to degrade to unacceptable levels. The deficient intersections include all three of those that are stop-sign controlled: Bayshore Boulevard and Southbound 101, East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue, and Produce Avenue and Southbound 101. Five of the signalized intersections would operate below the acceptable threshold: Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue would operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours, Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour only, Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Road, and East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure CIR-Dl: Improvements listed in the East of 101 Area Plan and summarized in Table 13 should be implemented to accommodate intermediate level development through 2003 of the Directed Growth Alternative. The improvements required at the intermediate level of development include roadway widenings, intersection signalization, intersection channelization (adding lanes at the intersections), and pavement restriping. With these improvements, the eight impacted intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The results of the level of service calculations both with and without the improvements are presented in Table 16 and 17. With these improvements, no significant impacts on vehicle circulation would result from Area Plan development through 2003. As shown in Table 13, three of the improvements would only be necessary to accommodate buildout of the Genentech Master Plan. If Master Plan buildout does not occur, these improvements could be eliminated from the City's traffic improvement program for the East of 101 Area. (2) Freeway Impacts. The results of the intermediate analysis (2003) for Highway 101 in the Directed Growth Alternative are summarized in Table 18. Impact CIR-D2: The southbound segment of Highway 101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue is expected to exceed an acceptable level of service under intermediate development of the Directed Growth Alternative. The results for the intermediate development levels of the Directed Growth Alternative indicate that only one of the eight segments would operate below VI-99 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION the minimum standard of LOS E. On the southbound segment between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue, the traffic demand is projected to exceed capacity during the PM peak hour of travel. To mitigate this impact, widening of Highway 101 would be required, and such widening does not appear to be feasible at this time. Widening would entail elimination of the southbound on-ramp at Linden Avenue and elimination or reconstruction of the existing pedestrian overcrossing. In addition, there may not be enough space in the existing right-of-way to accommodate the southbound flyover ramp from Dubuque, and the addition of an extra lane could also adversely impact the existing drainage system. Because of these implications, widening of Highway 101 is considered infeasible. Thus, the unacceptable level of service of Highway 101 resulting from the Area Plan would be an unmitigable impact of the project. VI-100 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 13 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS (Directed Growth Alternative) Improvement Widen Oyster Point Boulevard from two to four lanes from the existing two-lane segment west of Eccles Avenue to the proposed Gull Road. Widen Littlefield Avenue from two to four lanes from Eas[ Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue. Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Littlefield Avenue, and add a westbound left-turn pocket on East Grand Avenue at the East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue intersection. Install traffic signals at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Gateway Boulevard at East Grand Avenue. Add a second through lane at the approach from the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard. Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp (scissors). Install traffic signals at Produce Avenue and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp. The following imprwements'would also be needed to accommodate buildout of the Genentech Master Plan bq 2003: Add aright-turn lane from eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to southbound Gateway Boulevard. Restripe northbound approach of Gull Road at Oyster Point Boulevard to include alert-turn lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. Restripe southbound left-turn lane of Forbes Boulevard at East Grand Avenue as a shared through/left-turn lane. VI-101 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION AUGUST 1993 Table 14 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM Peak Nour PM Feak Hour Intersection Type Met6oda V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 2.45 F 1.17 F 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 0.53 B 0.39 A 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Signal 1 2.54 F 1.89 F 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 2.50 F 2.44 F 5 Oyster Point and Eccles Signal 1 1.94 F 2.37 F 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On-Ramp Signal 1 0.63 C 0.58 B 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal 1 0.85 D 0.60 C 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.52 B 0.55 B 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 1.00 E 0.93 E 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 0.52 B 0.85 D 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 1.04 F 1.11 F 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 1.00 F 0.99 E 13 East Grand and Littlefield Signalb 1 1.13 F 0.99 E 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 0.87 E 0.91 E 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 0.96 E 0.34 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 0.84 D 0.87 E 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 0.75 D 0.87 E 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 0.73 D 0.92 E 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.78 D 0.82 D 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 O.S7 B 0.90 E 21 South Airport and WB 380 On-Ramp Signal 1 0.64 C 0.81 D 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off-Ramp Signal 1 0.40 A 0.23 A 23 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 1.59 F 0.99 E 24 Dubuque and U.S. 101 Ramps Signal 1 1.20 F 0.99 E 25 Oyster Point and Gull Signal 1 1.06 F 1.48 F 26 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 0.82 D 0.54 B a Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified C.Yrcu[ar ~~~ riamm~g. b Traffic signal control was assumed for calculation purposes. VI-102 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 15 U.S. 101 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Se me t AM Peak Hour ' PM Peak Hour g n Direction Capacitye Volume V/C LOSb Volume V/C LOSb Sierra Point to Oyster Point NB 8,800 8,880 1.01 F 10,630 1.21 F SB 8,800 10,850 1.23 F 9,390 1.07 F Oyster Point to Grand NB 8,800 12,030 1.37 F 9,390 1.07 F SB 8,800 8,650 0.98 E 12,360 1.40 F Grand to South Airport NB 11,000 13,100 1.19 F 8,720 0.79 D SB 8,800 7,680 0.87 E 11,930 1.36 F South Airport to San Bruno NB 13,200 16,130 1.22 F 10,710 0.81 D SB 13,200 9,730 0.74 D 15,020 1.14 F a Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. b Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1 , using 60 mph freeway design speed. VI-103 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Intersection 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp 2 Airport and Butler 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB Ramp 4 Oyster Point and Gateway 5 Oyster Point and Eccles 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On- Ramp 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off- Ramp 8 Grand and Linden All-Way Stop Signal 101 Signal Signal Signal Signal ~ Signal 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Rai 10 East Grand and Dubuque 11 East Grand and Gateway 12 East Grand and Forbes 13 East Grand and Littlefield 14 East Grand and Grandview r 5 Executive and NB 101 Off-Rai 16 Airport and Produce 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp 18 South Airport and Gateway 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps 20 South Airport and Belle Air 21 South Airport and WB 380 On- Ramp 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off- Ramp 23 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport 24 Dubuque and U.S. 101 Ramps 2$ Oyster Point and Gull 26 Forbes and Gull Signal Signal Signal All-Way Stop Signal One-Way Yield 157 r 1 0.46 A 1 0.81 D 1 1.00 E 1 1.29 F 1 0.59 C 1 0.69 C 1 0.55 B 1 0.86 11 1 0.42 A 1 0.98 E 1 0.86 D 3 183 F 1 0.59 C AUGUST 1993 PM Peak Hour iterion° I LOS 94 I F 0.35 A 0.76 D 0.73 D 1.04 F 0.59 C 0.51 B 0.59 C 0.81 D 0.69 C 0.77 D 0.90 E 165 F 0.72 D 72g A Signal 1 0.71 D 0.82 D Two-Way 2 57 E ~ E Stop Signal 1 0•~ C 0.80 D Signal 1 0.57 B 0.57 B Signal 1 0.46 A 0'68 C Signal 1 0.48 A .0.67 C Signal 1 0.33 A 0.21 A Signal 1 0.73 D 0.61 C Signal 1 0.47 A 0.54 B Signal 1 0.75 D 0.95 E Signal 1 0.85 D 0.61 C I' d a Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning, (2) 1985 HCM for unsrgna -ze intersections, (3) TRB Circular 373. b Level of service criteria are: V/C for Method 1, reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement for Method 2, delay (in sec.) for Method 3. Table 16 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM Peak Hour Type Methods. Criterion LOS VI-104 x~z -,wo ] F Wzv O F A O ~ ~ O Q7,F W a ~o a Q a H W ~ U 5 ~ W ~ E ~ j 0. ~a c A ~o~H H A ~ ~' U W a zQ~ z c c a , U A U A A aq A A '° 4 ~~ 0 0 C4 O h ~+ .~ ~ ~ M l~ p ~p ~ e} 0p N r ~ >. 00 .,~ 0. ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 'h U o ~ =° 3 F M ~ ~ U c ; _ a '. A A A A A A U A 1~ Z . . ~ V . 'N U . ~ o ' ~ IS ~ ~ ~ i o~ a'~o ~ ~ ~ ,= o c o 0 , 0 0 0 0 ~ o V c.~v N ~ F N ~ z R o `~ F ~ ~ ~ O C _ C ~ _ cQ C C 6n h a 'v~ 'vi in O 'v~ ao in o O in e O in e q ' ' ~ j c 3 > ~ v ~- ~ w- a x c ~ w A w A w w w w 3, Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$ ~ ° ~ z7 ,_a`~o a ~ ~ ~ a c%, ~ ~o a ~ ~] •, 0. ~ o •-• o o ,-, c ~ 4 a o .~ 1 w W w W A w W A a~ w ~ ~ „ `~ x 0° ~ ~ y o: c ~ y ~ ~ ~ O N ~ 00 W ~ ~ ~ '~ U ° ~ o C ~ o a o a ~ o o g ~ `~ ~ ;, 3 R 3 .~ c ~ 3 ~ c ~ ~ a ~ ~ ao 00 a a ~ c ~ ~, ~ ~ ; ~ . ~o , •. . ~p U ~ E E a ~~i+ ~ ~ G .~ v W.. ~ R ~ w y~ ~ N ~ 3 bj v~ ?~ 3 " ~ w p i., ro ~ _ ° c7 w v ° ° ~ • ~ ~ C ~ w ~ :a ~ ~ ~ G ~ •~ ~ R c 0 ~ ~ C cQ f/1 ca ~ w cCC ~ .C p .C p b ~ 'O C 'D C 'G ~ •~ ' p ~+ o a. a ~ © L a~ a. a~ U • ~ ~ ~ C7 v c7 ; y ux ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ :: a i ° ~ r. ~ ~ r v, x O 5 wIwIAIwI~IwlAlw s ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ U o 0 0 -~ o 0 0 0 m ~ a a a O 7 r!~ a "' o H Q ~ E.+ ~ U_ p W 'a W ,.a ~ 0 ~Igl~lol~l~l~l~ w~w~w~A~A~A~w~~ ~ I~ I ~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I 0 0 ,., 0 0 0 0 0 ap ~ ~ o g o 0 ..r '. °° ~ 00 h O~ !~ T ~D N 00 H a ~ A ' ~ O G,7 F ~ F W W ~ r+ ~ W ~Az m a m U ao 00 00 00 --~ r. oo cn r. r; 0 z ~ z ~ z ~ z ~ 'c, C rr ' a V MM W V 9 C a ~' ~ s o s o . O V ~ O a B R i ~ ~ . L V 7 ~ r ~ ~ N abi ~. N OD .~ ~a R L d e .N .: a~ H .~ ~~ ~. ~' V ') ^zV W Q) '~ L [C 7 U 8 N R N ,~ oa ~o ~~ 4y '~ y ~a C~ E= R ~, 5 N ` ~ N ! V ~ se ~ '''~ P~ a / ~ 8 8 G YY i Y \ es ~ 'VRPgFr ~ A r °R ~ 4r t 5 ~° G ~/ tipdti~ ~~ ~ , J\ ~d \ cps, h , t~ ~\ ?J H~RBDR t0 `? ?0 y t~ SO ' \ 3S0 ze3 ~ D ~,s pyt ~' ~ ~ ti v ~ ~y 'P ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ T ~' `~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~~'` PQ~r y s ~ ~ ~ Q N v ~ W t ~ o~ a~ S ~ ~ii i~ ~ ~; ,, W o ti ~" ~ ~.~ o N v,~ ~ ,~ O y '~/ yt~ ~~ ~~~ ~\ - ~(j ~06'~ VI s r d' , rc// 1C / ~ ~~ / '1 4 J Uiit£FlELD ~! ~ ~~ p o q S ~/NOD, ~~ l ~ es l, o t. C R// ° a~S' ~4r°J L ~ ~ \ S AIRPDRi ~J ~,p ~~ 0 ~~ R ~p p a 0 \r ~\ ~J J ~~ ~~ ~O ~~t Sf'0 pt ~ s tid ~ y ~ ~ /y 'b 303 -~ h (~ zos ~, I ~ I ~ ~ / ~ / ~~y 4r"~, / 9P,`~ (~ 73 \~f / ~ ~i ~, N ~~Q~ .~` Qd~ ~ ~ ~, F ~ 1t oNi N N 8 c ~ A A '^ ~ ~ N ~ A ~ ~ G W ~ d'` ~' 0 1 ~// ~/. `1 L lb i F S g s $ 8 ~ c 3 `" $3 4~ g "~/ I _ I Y i Y ~ °0 I ' t s ~0 j Y r ~1/Rp~ ~~ / I\ y0 r l~ ,aP b,~ ]I ~ \ ° Y~ ~~'~ 1 5. AIRPORT ~f~ ~ 1 ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O~ y ~ IJ~ \ \~ r\ J1 1 ~ ~l Bu y_ ~ u G ~ ? R mf ° o / ~ 8 ~ g g ,~uP ~ g o ~ 0 ~ s -c ~ ~' o N ~ to N O ~ ~ ~O/ C ~` o A ~ ' S n O ~y =s~ ~ L ~ ~ .~ 1 ~- L p9~ ~ 1 ? f ~ ~ ~- ~ ~- F ~ D ~ ~B~oGE ~ xvM3ivD ~ h 1 ~ yon ~, O ~ ° /~ Y ~ a6°~t ~y ,~, ~, E 2~i~ °eo b o~z soc ---3, ° ~ G o< ~ A ~ O~~ N ~ r ~ ~ ' e o (71 O G U ~t ~/ Or / ~4 y • ~,,~ ~ y~~~ ~ ~ 5 I I ~ iy ~~ 'b Po ~ o ~ \y ~ ~db~ ~ 1 L °y ~ ° ° p~ ~ ,, ° ~~ J1 ~'4r 4' 1-~ ? Z Q0 ~ I I ~ c ~ I ~ ~ ~°v d`°~,~ ~ ~naoad ~o~ N~ ~, o ~ ~ w~~ ~ ~ `~' '' o ~$ ~ nO2~ ~ ~oV V 2 p /~(/, o C C •+ /v y ?y ro ~/Np~ ~ v `6 \~ ~~~ ' \ `fir d ~1 °J ~N~~-O AV ~ g~ ~o I MM A ~ ~ W ~ C t-f1A V V o ~'s A~ ~nDDae -vRPavr c B 2 ~ 0 ~~ ~ P m ~ > ~ C ? ~ s` Z C~ r ~~ ~ ~° ~ ~ s ~,~, '~ N +~ a o e N N W Y. N ~ '~° 9~N N A z ~ ~ ~ ~ 'A . ~ ~o s ,~ :x :O :y 'n :~ N .' A O n `~_~ 0 0 >K a y~ 0 ~m y b O~ ~0 H g ~. ~' '~ .~~. ~ O y ~ .~+ ~ 1AT . ~ A ~ " ' D ~ . .y ~ 7 ~ Q b 5 ~ c b ~ a ~ T. ~' ' ~~ x ; ~ o 5' 0 a. ~ ~ rp ~ ~ ~ ~ G7 N ~~~~ N ° V N yy w t V ~ r sm ,y .o .' ~ Gtitti S d ~ -II I- c HARBOR F' ~ Y ' \~ ~+lt ,1i ~RPoRr ~ R' o Rl R ' \ ~ Sp4 5 00 ~ 1 \r ~° pit ~ rye ` ~ tfiS ~ ,6'p. 30~ 4t ~ ~ 7d ~, 1 ~ ~ I ~ yp y \~ , 2 o,P r ~~ RQ I o O -. Pi _ ~ o ~ ° ~ ~ o ~_ ~° yJ 4r "C'G ~ 4 o,~ ~B ~,.pO o y_ -O L W ~ 0 OD W W N ~,J~~\ ~/~tF 0~1~ TIC '~~ ~eC/~ ~~ y LITREFlEIO ~~~ 1~~ ° ~~J UHOLrN ~ / /~ ~ + ~/4 d' JP o y 1c~ f \ ? S. AIRPORT ~ ?~ J ~' ' \ `10 ~~ IL~ Q 0 ° ~- ~ ? 7 ~ eD s ~ \ J V~ y o ~ $ ~/y ° ~ 0 ens 4t \ j ~ Zi ~} ~ ~ \ S ' dot vd as ~ I I ~ ~+~,~, ~k~2;, d°~ a` G 0` ~ ~ ~i ~ /~ v s O u u '~I- G O I~1 t G N a# li' ° ~ ~~ m ~ o '^ A ~ ~ m ~ ~ w O ~~ q ~` ` / ~L 7 ~ y N' •UI~ Iu- ~~ Y ~ Y ~ sp ~ ~ r~ ipe3 ~ " ` -/p4o N'PpORl F~.1 ~4 ,~ I7'.1 y / ~ ~./ v~ O ~ ~°\ ~~ j? ° y~ R ° ~ ~ h 1 (S~ AIRPORT d+~ ~~ III 1 ~ ~ opt j~ ~~J az° \x.11 ~0 I~ ~N~\ y J /y o u O ° 7 o F u ~, ~ v~' ~P u u ~ ° a+ NB ~ A N ~ ~j~~1 °~ ,Oj 4 Gy N ~ r+ ~ ~ =JJ \~ ( 71~ ~ uB~O~ YlY LGLe *1 n SW ~ ~ 1 / o R ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~. E 1~\ i AYM3IYJ SLtt -~' ,L Yt ~ 0~~ ~O ~ ~ ~ ~O ~~~ fcc 9G pv/SGpGe r ~ L ~ vse~e ~ ~ ~ ~', lypdNlV d'~yy / cY ( f I~I s ~J L~ v '' 5 ~ ~ ~R \ ~c ~~ s br ~ ~~s R \~ 1 I OdtiN lti Gp1 /~ ~ u ~ / ' , 47 J ~ ~ C~ ~ JJ ~ e0 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ \l 1C {".,~ I p `~'6 G`oG y Z 4~~j~ N ° 30n00Nd I ,~+~,~` g T~ i ~i ~ ~NNn pp 9~ ~ ° ~c ~ °tio. ti ~e a /~ o C C R/ UNO~ ~iV e°~~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ Syy ~ \ ~°s ~~F ` O ~v o ~ 4i 2m r ~ ..a O ~ m ~- z 'P,o nY 3~npoae °P tiRPo s Rl e c ~ o= (O ~ ' \ ~e~ 5. ° Qf ~ ;: Z~ ~O '` ~ ~ ~~ oR ~ ° N ~ 0 FFFnnn ~y iO N~ a tiM N < A ~"~ r ~~ W ~ ~ ~ ~v ,~ :> :x ~o ;a ;o ''-n :> 1~ 0 ~~ 0 cn 0 >C a >A 0 ~m y b O -i ~0 g s 3 R. s e-r ~. K ='s d y :: ~' °, ^ ~ C b ~ C ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ a ~~' W N °a~.~s N V Y { G= N t V s y O e`, Fl4RBOR I ~ J~O ~~ ~RPORl } / ~ 'Pr ~ `t 5 'U c N' ~~~ ~ ltipdti 1C r ~op~~ ~\ ~ 0 es `- ~ 30 aJ I \s ~a1 ~ ~ *+o Ito / p°t ~ ~ ~~ I v ~o ~- S oso s ~~o~$ A s om ~,~ o L'~ W ~ ~' oo , w $ ~ ao Lq N ° . 0 o 1 l ~,, L J \ y R rC \ ~ ' 5. NRPORi ~ ~~`~0 J 0 \~ ~\ 0 O ~ ~ ~ ~~s 10 ~~ ~~ e, ° o / n~7 06 ~ I J ~y y 1D~ / _ `{p !4S ~' 1E0 -~ )pp ~ R/ ~ / ~ I~ ~r `7 JO \/ / ~ ~O O~J ~ N ~° fi" A ~ S ~ ~ o ~ A m ~ o ~ W G ~ 1,° ~ `' d~` ~ 1 ~o~ z,w ~~ z s$x ~~ ~' 7`~ Y Z Y ~ 20 ~ Y r_ 3IS ~RPoRT N 1 4 ~\ ~ 00 'obuJ~ 00 y~ ~O,O~ 9° ~/ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ C ,?0 ~ I,u ~ ~ ~ o ~~ OuB _ u o ~S ~ c 9 ~ ~ os a ~ ~ ~ rr '~ T r' ~S O r UpUE ~n~ ° ° o Y o b > ~ S ~ l -;5y ni ~ $ o AMP A V ~ NO ~ N 0 ~ A q ~1 J ~ • e Tea s 4LS 1"1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O~ 'Je O ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~~J' ~ y ~ OvBUpUE, ~ ~ ~l ~_ 1 AYht31WJ N u e ~ 0 ~ ¢ C ~~/ c~ ~ ~ s o ~ OBi N o ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ oy'FA j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~„ r ? tiN ' 3 ~ I ~ ~ f~ -t\ \ ? y ~\ u I ~'1 J °p J ~J ~ h r ~ 1tipd ~, d,. ~~ ~G,,~~ ~y „' y c, ~ I I ;G o M Z 30l100Hd ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~.'` ~ ~ ~~ 70 . ~ :o ,a :x ~o . H ''-n :a m N n 0 cry 0 >; 3- iJ a 0 ~m a O~ ~O a r N r - "'! ~ d C ~, W ' ~ os ~ a ~ c C~ A y p, 1, ~ ~ .da,~_*, ~ ~ 8 ~ O x ~ O 5 ~ C O ~ ~ ~.. y A om --N ., ~ -- N V N V t ~ s f 0 f ~ Y HARBOR ' \~ Joo PORT ~ • \ 1 ,JO peg N 's J\ ~^ ~ l~Oda OT1a ~~ ,)s ~~ ~C\ ~r0 ~J > J b \~ •\ JJJ ° i~ ° oat ~b oLy~ ~ p~ ~ ~ I I ~~ ~\, U °,Pr ;i l o ~ , ~ u G'' C ~ 4~,s ,~ o ~yy ~ y ~s B .p ` ,O y ~ S.O z W a~•5 ~ ~ ~ ~ pp L N boo \ - / 30` \ v1 j~ } ~ / ~~ y J LIITLEFlELD ~ ~~ p J L/Np~, ~1 / ~ ~ZA 1, 7= U°~o\ ~j ` \ r0 ~~° ~,J S* 1 " ~ ~T S. AIRPORT ~ 1 ~ 610 ~ io ~ 100 -~ J ~r ~ J ° DO ~~ R/ ~ / ~ ~~• p tJp ~r ~ eJ I \ V1 R\ y \ J ' .jy yC /y / qD p ~ r~ ~0 1 ~ ~ ~ 4 '` to o o~ ? O 4V / ~ ~ ~ N ~ o ~ A ff~~ ~ ~ m ~ C Op % / NBC ~ G ~ ~ ~ seo '" ~ ~ ~ ,y g` ` C^, R/~~ o ~ ~ \ of ~1~ ~~ oe0 0~' ~ ~ I ~ AIRPORT JZ~ J,,is ~r rG \ ~1 ~o ~~ pUBUOVF / r o~yt /y ~' o c °s a oy~ ~ e ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~P'Oj o ~ y ~ < b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O OrOt .S U Of}. AoA ~ ~yq1 ~ A u Y y~ U TIr i ~ pO1ti0d~" h ~ R 1 0 / N rj ~P °Po ~ ~ ~ ~ Jo~~ ~ y puBUOVt, l~ ~ \ I I F' i ~ ~_ AVM31V0 ~ T OYII -~ R' o e - oL ~~°r M~ a ,R~. ~ `b ~ S G ~ ~ z v F 0 ~ oy'Fb r ~~c % '4 ~ ~ 'kiTF'O ~ Fc~ N ~ ~ oc ~/ oty r~N$''o ~ ~~ lypdaN ~ / S ~ ~C/ ~ ~ s ~ eo ~ qrt ~~~ ~ o \ _ ~C y 4,I 1 ~Ody 5 ~ I I ~ C ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ ° Y ~\ JZO ~ \~ ~ 4t ti , °J '~ ~ r \ y~ S / l o~ ~ u ~r o cC~ z o J1 ,~ ,r 3onpoae y~~~ ~ ci ~ ~ '``~~,. J ~ ° g O ~ u o mN N A }{'1 r p (~O2C O ~ 444 t. \ ~ \~ r \ ~ J ~ ~ ~~ r\ o g ~ O HIV 1 r V m ~~ ti V ~$ y' ~ Ay 30f10Oad ti ~A'l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O , ~ aFx pd~N ~ ~e Lti `~~ ^~ R = ~ ~~ ~O ~c a r ~~, ~'P ~X'Z~ < ~~ N a~ / N ~ a N ~ A W pA'~ W Ao ~, a . > ~O :> :z ~O ~a N ~o ''-n :> -~ to ~~ n ~~ 0 cn 0 >; _, :, CIa~ 0 ~m y by 0 -• ~~ ~ A ~ K ~ '4 N ~ a ° o ~;W " ~ ~ d a A f~D ~ ~ ~ y "C °' a ~ ~ o X ~ ~ ~ 5 C ~ C y ~.II o`~ N N .,~0 V g „ N t V ~ ~ sm .~'a -o ` , ~ 8 ~i' 8 ' it Y HA Q $ ~RPoR ~ } $'Fl ~ '1f yOti .5 .y ~ ~ ~OdaN ~ ~~ ~ ~0~ RBOR f ~ ~\\ ZJ > ~ t ~ ~ ~\JJO 7 ~ b ~~J `St /' ~ ~° v ~C S~4 ~ ~ `6 ~ 3, ~ Q ~ ~ 4T ~ ~ I ~ ` • 7 ~ i ~ ~P.o JJO owl i{ I ~ f'1 n O o ~ ° ,_'o ego "i"ii -o ^,?, ~ 'oo ~,o v N W '~ ~~, r ,sd W ~ -+ W ~ W ~ N vP.a ~ pqy ~ \ ~/ 4cF o~,~ 1C / 6. a R/ /~ ~ IC o ~ LIiTLEfTELO R/~~ ~~ t ~ [6VOfN ~~ /~ I~ eJ 9'~ c~0 ~OJ J ~~ p J ~ ~ V1 y / ~ ~ 1C \ S. AIRPORT ~~ ~ ~O O ~ O 0 ~ z Y 1~ ~ )1 J \~ ~~ ~1 ~ ` ~~ ,iV*°4p. ~ j /y gb J S -? ' R/ y "J ll / ~r 9P N * Zs° ~ ~ / ~ ~'b a y. zos -i ^y 4 r u o y, 7} N (~ 4 p F ~' L' ~ o ~ ~ m ~ o ~ A m ~ c W ~` vy ~ y / ~iC~ ~ g ~ ~ s~o ~ ~ ~~S V ~~~4 - I I . I Yr i `- ~ ~o I I - i Y r- s ~0 NA%R~gl ~1 4 ~ ~O ''.~ ~(J. w' R ~\ " \~ ~ O ~ ~ '~ S. NRPORT ~ Z ~ l ~ 1 I ~ b j` ~ Po \ U\ y~ AC O Y O OU B ~ 4~ 4~ 9 rn u o g ~f,~, ~ ~ ~~ U o I I~ ~ ~O~ ~ / UOVF o 0 ~~ o > ~ o g Nv P u v ~ g N ~ ~ ~ C ~ C ~ A o BLS ~ oL p~IN 5 ~~ ~ ~ ,O/ ~4p ~4 ~ ?O '° ~ ~ ` J ~ o~, ~ j ~ ~ 1 ' ~ ~ ?'~ ~~ ~ ° ~ ue~Uf R ~ - L o~t AYM3IYO * 1 Tf I 0 ,~ a ~ / 0 ~ ~ ~ tl~0~ ~L !}~, ~ ~ ~ \ \ ~ usJ, ~' Ott -? osf -'~ ° ~ , 4 A 4A °y J ~ `y o Shy y ~° ~ ~ S'VV IH /F'O 4y, .~ ~v ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ N o ~ fC~. ° U u ~t3' 1 j l '~ ~ v ,, ~ So, o $ $ ~ spy laodaN b \ 4 ~ ~~ o ~7~ J / \ e ~ ~~, ~S[ll 'Yln \~ 1 ~ I ~ PT s \ \ L1 r\ y 1~ ~~~'' y 1~~ QT Js ~1~ JO ~~o ~- 60 O\~ * _ 1~ a `~ f ~Ody o~ ~ 1 4r ~ o ~ ~ ~ y~ J ` /~ JO b ~ ?e {~-, 1 O ~ 1 I ~ ~`1 ~ lj I ++~~ $, O U' Z a~ v+ N 3~naoad d' ~9 4 ~ l G '` u p O2C '1 b 4 ~ . .Z ~ p p ~~ O C ~ / C y J\~ 7~J \ o ~ ~V is \~~ ~\ i~ +~ ~ ~'(t ~~'O HIV ~ IC 2 I J V .~ ~ o vA op ~ AY 3O~OOad Nq "ORt ~ 2C o _. W ~ p ~' /~ m OD ~ tiN od ~s ~ ~ ~ 4~0~ ~ ~ ~i, r ~ ~ ° Z ~ ~. c ~ m 0 R N o in 1t ~° n F~ Bt N a r N ~ a >N~ N ? W e W 0 1M tip z o~~ ~' ~ '' o UTTLEFlELD Av ~ j W ~ ~cc~".r 4 m 1L Z A cR``°y W oq N ~,n~ \~' N oti ~ bC ~o .> :v . ,~ :z ~v ~a ~ H ~ H ''-n :~ n 0 cn 0 0 y~m y N b 0~ ~~ ~ C g ~ ~ o ~ .q C ..s n p ,.,, v~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o S ~ ~ n.r a c ~ ~ c Q ~ Q 5 v 3 ~ ' s~ G7 N °~ ,~ N V ~ ,r `i se .. 8 ~ 11 P FNR i Y ~ '~Rn°R ~ ~~J\ . /O~y N .5 O~ V1 ` 11l°d~ ~ r J\ O°l~d ~ \ ~\\ !~ BOR YY ~ ~? /0 T N (~ s 3D;3 ~r • \ ~?J i~ !b Oyt ~ ~9 ~y~ ~~t~ ~~J tS~ err' ~ ~ r J~ vA°P ~ O ~ ~ ~ e O ~ o NO o ~ ~~ J~ OJ ~.p ~O N O,~`TB A 'o 4'L O v N ~'P„ W .h r a~ ~ ~ W q OD ~ O N v'~ OA ~~'$ ~/ o°CF \a K u~ ~~~' ~~ y ~ f. ~ ~~ LITTLEFlELO ~ /~4 r ~y ~p N LINp 4 s ~ ~ / ~ 14 ~ IS T J. /p ~41y a~6 ~J ~ \~Cl , S. AIRPORT ~ 2 ~ ~ \T ~ J 1G~ ~0p \ ~ \ V1 a ~ y~~° ~~ ~i O 1ti ~ 1 ~ -~ ~ ~ r r' ~~ ~ . ~r qP ~~ G ~ 0 */ JS ~ ~ / ~ u ! ~J o _ . s N U 7Y U O ,y 1~ 4 G ti 4 ~ / 04v ~ N ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ G y~~`` w R/1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ O ~, ~~~~ I - I - Yr i Y ~~ I I - i Y L I OCS .rte 10 / ~RPoRT ~,1 4 F~ 1 TS i J ~' J ~O\ 1` 7J~ y 1 S. AIRPORT 1 / j~ ~ 7 } o \ ~1 ~~CCC ,,. ` ~~ OvBVO ~ Oti/y & g o g u O~ ~T ~ ~ / o ~ r ~ ~ ~O7 U F ~D~ O o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u U a P y ~ ~ 'l'B ~ C ~ ~ ? O~~ .5 ! °~ O! ° R~y OL ~ ~ v ~ 1 '°°~~ ~ °~B~°~F R ~ ArnuLVs h O ~ \ SLh l -S tea' ~ 9 O~ O,! ~ ~ ~ ~`{'o 0~ ~ S1ry ~ TE'o ~ ~ F~c ~" ~ S yes o oc cp R//o~y c ~/ ot,° ,r \ /4 d'ti 7~ / .~ ~J 1 ~ v ! a0 OSL ~~n ~~~ r ~ ~ r ~ tiN a ~ ~ ~~~ J Sp 7~ ~(\~,(~!J ~S ~~' ~~- J,75 ~ ti ~°d a ~~ ~SLo ~ t ~ f~ ~1 J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ , 7 r '6 '6 J ogy Z S ,n 3JfI0ONd y1 / ~1 L i~~1r m ' N G $ b G m ~ Rx~.fp C ~ N T O = C ti O c ~ So / C C /~ ~ / _ 0 / y rr 0 c-• '~J "~' / ~J ~~ O AV 2 m ~ ...t I _ V ~ ~ O ti'~q O P d ^ 1.RPoRT ~ nr 3~naoa rc ( ~ /y J M ~ (~ Q ,` d ~~ odN ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ e ,e ~ ~ ~ 4~0~ m ' s N ~- p s~ ~ ~ ~~ o Z o,~ N '' 'r a N ~ a ~M N ~ A W r v IM ti~ GJ z 7~ . 7 ~o ,~ :x :° a N N „O ''-n ~" N ~~ 0 0 a ~_ H~ 0 ~m 0 ~ ~~ 1~ b g 3 5 N ~9 5 r 0 C ..~ W r a 0 e 0 -~ b fD a 0 A a~ 0 G y O a fD J AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Plan Buildout Impacts. Traffic impacts of full buildout of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be similar to those of the Directed Growth Alternative. (1) Intersection Impacts. Figures 6 and 7 show projected traffic volumes under buildout of the Planned Commercial Alternative, and Table 20 shows projected intersection levels of service. Under buildout conditions for the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, approximately half of the intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels. The number of poorly operating intersections, and the amounts by which the projected volumes exceed the capacity at several of the intersections, are indicative of the inability of the roadway system to accommodate the potential growth. Improvements similar to those listed for full-buildout of the Directed Growth Alternative would be required for this alternative, and many of these improvements are infeasible. Therefore, Policy LU-12 would also be required for this alternative, which would require the City to track development and to consider limiting development before unmitigable traffic impacts would occur. (2) Freeway Impacts. Table 21 shows freeway operating conditions under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. A majority of the freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS F. On some segments the volume is projected to exceed the capacity by 20 to 30 percent. (3) Summary. Under full buildout of this alternative, the transportation system impacts are so severe that improvements to the transportation system alone cannot mitigate them. Policy LU-12 requires the City to track development for its impacts on roadway systems. Once the available capacities are used, the City will re-evaluate East of 101 Area land use categories, and may limit the future development of the area. This policy would still be applicable under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. b. Intermediate Impacts (2003). The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative contains less flex space and similar amounts of office and retail space in comparison to the Directed Growth Alternative. In addition, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would contain 508 hotel rooms and 1,100 dwelling units at intermediate development levels. Traffic impacts of projected 2003 development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be similar to those for the Directed Growth Alternative. VI-119 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (1) Intersection Impacts. Figures 8 and 9 show projected traffic volumes under the intermediate development level of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, and Table 22 shows intersection levels of service under this condition. Impact CIR-Pl: Acceptable levels of service would be exceeded at six East of 101 Area intersections with development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative through 2003. Five intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and only one during the PM peak hour. The five intersections include the three stop-sign controlled intersections plus two intersections on Oyster Point Boulevard. Mitigation Measure CIR-P1: Improvements shown in Table 19 should be implemented to accommodate intermediate level development through 2003 of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. The improvements required for the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be similar to those for the Directed Growth Alternative. The results of the intersection level of service calculations both with and without the proposed improvements are presented in Table 23. All of the impacted intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels with the improvements. Unlike the Directed Growth Alternative, the analysis of traffic volumes for these Planned Commercial Alternative does not include buildout of the Genentech Master Plan. However, if buildout of the Master Plan were to occur, the impacts would be similar to those for the Directed Growth Alternative, and required mitigation measures are shown in Table 19. The improvements of the Area Plan would still be applicable; therefore, no additional impacts would be anticipated. (2) Freeway Impacts. Freeway impacts of intermediate buildout of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be similar to those for intermediate buildout of the Directed Growth Alternative, but they would be marginally better. A summary of projected operations is shown in Table 24. Impact CIR-P2: The southbound segment of Highway 101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue is expected to exceed acceptable level of service through intermediate development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. VI-120 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PI_A1V EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Only one of the eight freeway segments, southbound between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue, would operate below the minimum standard of LOS E. This segment would exceed capacity during the PM peak hour of travel. This would be an unmitigable impact of the Area Plan, as explained for the Directed Growth Alternative. VI-121 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPAC'T'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION AUGUST 1993 Table 19 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE (Intermediate Development Level) Improvement Widen Oyster Point Boulevard from two to four lanes from the existing two-lane segment west of Eccles Avenue to the proposed Gull Road. Widen Littlefield Avenue from two to four lanes from East Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue. Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Littlefield Avenue. Install traffic signals at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. Add a second through lane at the approach from the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard. Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and [he southbound Highway 101 off-ramp (scissors). Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 offramp. The following improvements would also be needed to accommodate buildout of the Genentech Master Plan by '2003: Add aright-turn lane from eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to southbound Gateway Boulevard. Restripe northbound approach of Gull Road at Oyster Point Boulevard to include cleft-turn lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. VI-122 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 20 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Type Methods V(C LOS V/C LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 1.56 F 0.88 E 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 0.52 B 0.39 A 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Signal 1 1.71 F 1.43 F 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 1.72 F 1.70 F 5 Oyster Point and Eccles Signal 1 1.93 F 2.08 F 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On-Ramp Signal 1 0.62 C 0.58 B 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal 1 0.76 D 0.60 C 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.52 B 0.55 B 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.91 E 0.92 E 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 0.45 A 0.78 D 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 1.00 E 0.91 E 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 0.97 E 1.00 E 13 East Grand and Littlefield Signalb 1 1.08 F 1.01 F 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 0.72 D 0.90 E 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 0.82 D 0.33 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 0.84 D 0.82 D 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 0.74 D 0.83 D 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 0.73 D 0.87 E 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.78 D 0.82 D 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 O.S8 B 0.92 E 21 South Airport and WB 380 On-Ramp Signal 1 0.63 C 0.82 D 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off-Ramp Signal 1 039 A 0.23 A 23 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 1.15 F 0.89 E 24 Dubuque and U.S. 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.91 E 0.89 E 25 Oyster Point and Gull Signal 1 1.06 F 1.48 F 26 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 0.82 D 0.54 B a Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning. b Traffic signal control was assumed for calculation purposes. VI-123 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 21 U.S. 101 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AUGUST 1993 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Segment Direction Capacity" Volume VJC LOSb 'Volume V/C LOSb Sierra Point to Oyster Point NB 8,800 8,810 1.00 E 9,710 1.10 F SB 8,800 9,540 1.08 F 9,390 1.07 F Oyster Point to Grand NB 8,800 10,580 1.20 F 9,350 1.06 F SB 8,800 8,440 0.96 E 11,170 1.27 F Grand to South Airport NB 11,000 11,720 1.07 F 8,780 0.80 D SB 8,800 7,680 0.87 E 10,730 1.22 F South Airport to San Bruno NB 13,200 14,620 1.11 F 10,770 0.82 D SB 13,200 9,720 0.73 D 13,680 1.04 F a Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. b Transportation Research Board; Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. VI-124 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 22 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM Peak Hour PM'Pei-k Hour Intersection Type Methods Criterion LOS Criterion LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp All-Way Stop 3 150 F 7 B 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 0.46 A 0.35 A 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Signal 1 0.65 C 0.74 D 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 1.00 F 0.82 D 5 Oyster Point and Eccles Signal 1 0.93 E 0.86 D 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On- Ramp Signal 1 0.58 B 0.57 B 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off- Ramp Signal 1 0.58 B 0.45 A 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.54 B 0.59 C 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.75 D 0.80 D 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 0.34 A 0.62 C 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 0.77 D 0.70 C 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 0.79 D 0.73 D 13 East Grand and Littlefield All-Way Stop 3 55 F 21 D 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 0.42 A 0.40 A 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp One-Way Yield 2 262 C 776 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 0.71 D 0.82 D 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Two-Way Stop 2 57 E 46 E 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 0.59 C 0.80 D 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.53 B 0.60 C 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 0.37 A 0.57 B 21 South Airport and WB 380 On- Ramp Signal 1 0.37 A 0.62 C 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off- Ramp Signal 1 0.33 A 0.22 A 23 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 0.58 B 0.55 B 24 Dubuque and U.S. 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.43 A 0._58 B 25 Oyster Point and Gull Signal 1 0.56 B 0.76 D 26 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 0.54 B 0.45 A Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning, (2) 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, (3) TRB Circular 373. Level of service criteria are: V/C for Method 1, reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement for Method 2, delay (in sec.) for Method 3. VI-125 pM~ O+ F Q wz O w~ a ~ ~ w p U F Q 0. ~_ w F O Q Q c Z F ,.¢a 0 o~~ °Q' w~ L~ [""' z~ wa U Saa `~"" w o~~ ~ O N`~~a ~ ~ W H A C U H E-^ W ~ ~ ~ N O W zWz z~ a ~ O a U A Q W A ~ r i ~ C' '~" O ~ pp ~O O ONO O VO1 O VN1 O n O '$ a ~ v' o`~o ~ ~ O A A CG U U ~ C ~ 5 o '_ :: ~ 0 o'r'o 0 vs 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 'C U E"a -. dp by Oq Op Oq a ca A A A w W ~ ~0 6 w ~" a o ~ ~ v ~ C ~ O N ~ 0 Q , a w w w w w CQ ~ a ~+ o « r, ~ v; v: U O O ~ ~ ~ ~ N 3 a ~ °° ~ °° R 3 a 3 ~ a °' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ CQ C7 a V W 'b w ~ a O o ... C 0 ~ ~ d ~ .fl C l0 v 0 ~ ca C cG C O O.i y ~' C LO C O LL ~ ~ ~ C ~ w ~ R v ~ B -- ~ ~; O ~p w O cv .~ ~ C O h t0 C 3 .y o ~ F ~ r, CU a ~ ~ ~ {U.n 'h U ~ ~ so y~ c F-~ R O G.~yp N N V f~ 0 V ~ V T U 3 °' a 8 ~~ o ~ ~ 3 ~_~ r ~ y bq W ~~ ~~ O .C.. O L~_` O U ~~ .e o~ c ~~ ~_ ~. ~o ~. U N ~~+ C fin. ~ T ,N ~ R c c~ ~ ,~ C 7 '~' w O > ~ ~~ ~~~ N 5 xwz ~~,~o ~h Q~~ wz~ 0 HA O ~ ~ O ~A7.,H w ¢ x ~o a a. F 1 Q N :: H `" O A w A w U w A w L 7 ~ ~ 00 O~ 00 O O~ 00 '~ o 0 0 : c o 0 0 = . u a a . o ~ o ~n cn ao " ~ cn c~ oo ~ ao r o0 0~ -, 7 .. ~ O w A W A A A W U ~ ~ ~p ~ 0p '~ " W ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >~ C. 0 0 0 0 0 o c ° ° ~ ,~ E v ~ v M ~ ~ ZS ~ oo r _ oo ~ oo ~o -~ v: r. `~. g $ g ~ ~ g g 25 ~ ao 00 00 00 .--~ . oo Ki r; . o. r . m U 'd 0 1~1 C p ° a V ~ ~ a ~ V O ~ ~ y O 7 y C C • ~ ~ 4 ° O ` e a ~ ~ a ' c ~ 6 © r _ pp ~- h R 7 ~ V1 In C7 cn W W a O W A W F A W W F z C on R w n. S c .N cn a~ H ~~ U V ~' U 0 r 3 ^Zy ~~ W Q~ 'D U L f0 U ~ 8 ~ V N ~p N N O C~ O ~ Ry U y^ a° U E- cC ~ N 5 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION AUGUST 1993 VI-128 °~m N ~ \ V _ gg G G' N V at ~ ~' sa ~R'~ y-o J~J p\t 'S 3 ~ ,/ ~ypeaN eC 4 0~ ~~ c H.IRBOR ~f •' Y ~\\~~`~Qf ZJ N~RT ~ } .v ~\~O p~ /, - \R ~~J oat \ rye ~ 30c0 ~ 36 eo ~- ~ ~ y z A a ~ S O~ O6 4 yN~ ~ ~~~ ~~ $ O,v ~ +{ m ~O ~ ~ ~ ~" C ~ G ~ n ~ ~~' ~ m ~N v~ W .h ~ y W ~ t,~ N ~~~\ ~//4~ S,\V\ ~ IC ~ ~jl /~ ~~ y UTREFlELO ~~~ ~~ p C/Np~ I / l / ~ )p Fr~j ( ~~~'p v/ -!~ ]]II y y ~ i\ ~T ~~ ~ ~JO S. NRPORT ~ O 0 ~r O ~ ~~~ 1 ~\ r ~\ V e ~O eCO ~ ~ ~ ~~ °~ L ~ ~s _S J ~ R/ ~.f0 ~ / 7~ . /r ~ ~ r ~/ ojo0 . / ?o ~1~* y o yy ~eo ~ ~ ~ ~~ y ~ V t ~ / ~ ~ ~' _ ijj~ ~ ~ ~ U 'y ] ~' N y ~ ~ A H r ~ o ~ ~^ r A + m ~ ° W o ~y ~/1 / z1 ~ U o L "° ~ ~ ~ 33S S ~ ~, cY '~ mil/ L 7 ~ . I I . h-- Y ~ Y ~ ~s I I - ~ 30 i `1 r_ - / 'VRPpRT F~,14 ~~ T JJ~ ` ~ ~\ ~ ~~~~ ~ °~°J S. AIRPORT ~ T r' ~~ os T ~' c~ J~ ~ j~ SOU ~~ ~ 7 -- r ~~\ ' pVe Orr ~~ v ~, ~. ~ u ~ ~ '~. r, ~8~ ~ T r ~ o ,~P'o~ ~~ F ~ ~~~~ U O N o yp~ ~ ~ O 0 _I /S1~ ,, JJ •5 Od ~ `'1 ~~ ~ ,p, ~p e~ ~ n_ ~y ~ ''J ~ ,J v U u I II zt l L ~~ ~ Y R ~ ~ \ • ff~~ e'p~7 OUBVOU f ~ o i ~ f _-~ AVM31 ~ ~~ 'nn iy o ~ 'o ~' 440\ ~L ~ t'j~c ~ (~ ~~1 ~ ' o~'G ~ say u IY, Oat ~ G a o p O< ~ 2, .~ y~~y O` O Oy ~ J ~~O SS\ - ~ StiV ~>Fp O~\ J ,~, C J FcC~fS J ' ~ oc 0 -V~//ya b 0~8 ~/ ctt lapeaN ~ ~ / /4y e~~ ` / \ ~J Y I ~.o ~ ote ~~n ~~ ~ pstiN ~ ~ ~~ ~ T r' ~\ ~ r b \ f ~ j~~ . ~~~eee ~ 4r Z~ ; ~ J ~ D°~~ ~ r ~ ''V yaM ~ ? r 3~nooaa ~4p ~~ 8 o ;~U A ~r L~ ~ ~ g ~' ~ A ~ ~ O C i ,~ ti (~02 y~' t" O ^~I~ O yC y c ~ INIV// / C 1C / 1 ~ e J ~i UNp /j ~AV ~~~~ ~~~ ' J Q% S1ry J 'k1Tt'p ,~V 2 m J I V V ~ ~ ti& ~~ 3~npoad °P, ti R,cbRr B` C ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ yN OA ~ '1g B B z ca ~~~ N ~ ~ m ~~ ~~ ~ o ~ N ~ L N N ~ s UpO~ N A N o ~ W z :o ,~ ;x ~a • H :~ -~ m 1~ ~_ 0 cn 0 a 1 0 ~m D y ro i> O c "i ~~ g G1 m 0 a T a A 5 r ~~~ a ~', -ti °w A ~ ~ day ~y ('~ A_ V Q r• ~' 3 ~ ~ n O C ~ ~ ... - y owe N .•A N Y r V r y~ N L~ ~ 2S V ~ r ma 1'~P'~ ,o ~/ ~`t •III I I- t J \~ FNRBOR f' •' YI '~q'~Rt ~ } Rr ~ ~°o y9'' N 'y r ~\ I~ t ~b O`y d m ~ I I ~ ~ ` o o'Pr ~ ~a£g S° J, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ °A, {b v ` ~~ ~s ~ ~q 'cam N .g .+ ~ r ~`a ~ ~ N -/ ? ?J. v y0`fs` \a ? 1C/ `Z' ~ o ~ / R/ y4 r \ ~ _/ N~(~/4 LRILEFlEID IL 7 ~ ~ _~i _ /& "Ti N ~1 LGyp \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~4 ~~50 i ~ V~ ]1 3 r \ ~ ~ ~~ e'j S. AIRPORT ~~ J~J ~ O~ ~ \T ~ J O 0 C 63 \~ ~G~ IIO 6J p ~!` \ VI ~ \ J p ° J ~~ ~~ JjO SJ ~"Y ~4 610 _ ' /~ ~ , ~~ I IJ b 7 r~ , ~a . A y ]S ~ 1 ~ ~~, / ~~ 45 4 4 ~L ~ ~ 4 ~ u y~ 7L u 8 f'~ N 4 ° ~• A ~~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ m ~ ~ W ~ d'~' ~1~ ~ U ~ L I,6 ~- ~ 1S ~ ~ .~ 0~ ~ ~g z 1 '~/RP t o T '~~~ ,~ ~ ~ °jo AIRPORT ~ f t \ .,, O j` I16 U ~~ ~ \~/ o ` o 1 ~ ~ I ~ y~y ~ ~ c N ~ ~ ~r 7 16p ~ ~1 ~j OuB ~r j~ O ~i °p ~uf O` y1 Ua O U ~ `" ~'~ ~ " ~ p j! SS~ O ~ T I ~'S IOI ~ oou ~P K ° N ^~ C11 N O ~ 'l"B 0 ` o A L ~ ~ /~9` y y6`ilIO N s ~ ~~ fIjO~t~ IZOP e ~y ~ ,oSr ~ ' ~ u o ~ ~ z ~1~ ~1 6~~~ o~e ~ J- vOUf R , t_ . Ar~~ -nno coo ~ p /~ Y. N 4F \ \ ~ SH6 -S u. p1 ~ o ~ •~ L p ~~ O ~ ~ ~ '~ ' Ec L OC O n ' 0 y'F~ ~ ~ R/ oo'' f/ Ott ~1 1F O 04 ~~ yo0~ N.$~"+o lei y~` lyoeaN s 40 ° . R//(`/ ~ \ 1L ~ ~ C~fS $ 25 Y i v ~ 1 ~ OO yy,1 '1 I--,11 \ ~ r y \ ~ 7 1~~ J J I a ~~ ~ Obi ~ to u ° ~ y0 "~ U.°° 61 ~ ~ v ~ TO ~' ~~ O oc ? ~ 3onaoae dot ,n y0 I '~,. fn 4 ~ 7L ~ N ~, f~7 0 GS ^ ° r o? ~ 4~4 Z~ C l / C 1C ~ 7\1 ury~H AV 4t~o\~J1 r~ \ 0 ~~O ~1V ~ o w 'J 20 J I V m ~~ a V z ° ~ A~ 3pnooae NgPo r Rt s~ C ~ .. ~ m p ~' ~ n C 2 odtir = ~ ~ ~e ~ S. ~ 4~"c m N zi F ~ o, >•g ~r N ~ X' et p N g ~ a N N Up9~ z ° ~ W :o ,~ ;x ~o ~a ''-n 9 ""~ m H 1~ 0 ~~ 0 0 '~. n 0 ~ m N .~y 0 -~ ~~ g a 0 H 7' 3 N 5 ~~~ ~ a N :; o :bw A=~ F~1 Q. H (~ A A O O 1' YQ~ /~ ~/ ~o AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 4. Market Oriented Alternative a. Plan Buildout Impacts. Traffic impacts of full buildout of the Market Oriented Alternative would be similar to those of the Directed Growth Alternative. (1) Intersection Impacts. Figures 10 and 11 show projected traffic volumes under buildout of the Market Oriented Alternative, and Table 26 shows projected intersection levels of service. Under buildout conditions for the Market Oriented Alternative, approximately half of the intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels. The number of poorly operating intersections, and the amounts by which the projected volumes exceed the capacity at several of the intersections, are indicative of the inability of the roadway system to accommodate the potential growth. Improvements similar to those listed for full-buildout of the Directed Growth Alternative would be required for this alternative, and many of these improvements are infeasible. Therefore, Policy LU-12 would also be required for this alternative, which would require the City to track development and to consider limiting development before unmitigable traffic impacts would occur. (2) Freeway Impacts. Table 27 shows freeway operating conditions under full buildout of the Market Oriented Alternative. A majority of the freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS F. On some segments the volume is projected to exceed the capacity by 20 to 30 percent. (3) Summary. Under full buildout of this alternative, the transportation system impacts are so severe that improvements to the transportation system alone cannot mitigate them. Policy LU-12 requires the City to track development for its impacts on roadway systems. Once the available capacities are used, the City will re-evaluate East of 101 Area land use categories, and may limit the future development of the area. This policy would still be applicable under the Market Oriented Alternative. b. Intermediate Impacts ,2003). The Market Oriented Alternative is similar to the Directed Growth Alternative in the amount of flex, office, and retail space projected for 2003. This alternative contains 508 hotel rooms, as does the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, plus approximately 2,100 dwelling units. Traffic impacts of projected 2003 development of the Market Oriented Alternative would be similar to those for the Directed Growth Alternative. VI-133 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MCTIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (1) Intersection Impacts. Projected traffic volumes for the intermediate development level of the Market Oriented Alternative are shown in Figures 12 and 13, and results of the intersection levels of service are presented in Table 28. Impact CIR-M1: Acceptable levels of service would be exceeded at six East of 101 Area intersections with development. of the Market Oriented Alternative through 2003. A total of six intersections during the AM peak hour and four during the PM peak hour are projected to operate unacceptably. Again, the three stop-sign controlled intersections are included in the list of poorly operating intersections. Mitigation Measure CIR-M1: The improvements shown in Table 25 should be implemented to accommodate intermediate level development through 2003 of the Market Oriented Alternative. Required improvements for the Market Oriented Alternative would be similar to those for the Directed Growth Alternative, with the addition of improvements to the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard at Gateway Boulevard and the deletion of the northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. The results of the intersection level of service calculations both with and without the improvements are presented in Table 29. All of the intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels with the exception of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E with the improvements. The reported volume-to-capacity ratio is 0.89, which is very close to the threshold for LOS D, an acceptable level. The added improvements that would be required to reach LOS D are of such a magnitude to be infeasible. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures have been identified. Unlike the Directed Growth Alternative, the analysis of traffic volumes for the Market Oriented Alternative does not include buildout of the Genentech Master Plan. However, if buildout of the Master Plan were to occur, the impacts would be similar to those for the Directed Growth Alternative and required mitigation measures are shown in Table 25. The improvements of the Area Plan would still be applicable; therefore, no additional impacts would be anticipated. VI-134 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (2) Freeway Impacts. Freeway impacts of intermediate development of the Market Oriented Alternative would be similar to those for intermediate development of the Directed Growth Alternative, but they would be marginally better. A summary of projected operations is shown in Table 30. Impact CIR-M2: Three segments of Highway 101 are expected to exceed acceptable levels of service through intermediate development of the Market Oriented Alternative. Three segments of Highway 101 are projected to operate at LOS F under intermediate development of the Market Oriented Alternative. This would be an unmitigable impact of the Area Plan, as explained for the Directed Growth Alternative. VI-135 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 25 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE (Intermediate Development Level) AUGUST 1993 Widen Oyster Point Boulevard from two to four lanes from the existing two-lane segment west of Eccles Avenue to the proposed Gull Road. Widen Littlefield Avenue from two to four lanes from East Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue. Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Littlefield Avenue, and add a westbound left-[urn pocket on East Grand Avenue at the East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue intersection. Install traffic signals at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Gateway Boulevard at East Grand Avenue. Add a second through lane at the approach from the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard. Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp (scissors). Install traffic signals at Produce Avenue and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp (scissors). The following improvements would also be needed to' accommodate' buildout of the Genentech Master Plan by 2003c Widen Oyster Point Boulevard to provide three eastbound lanes from Bayshore/Airport Boulevard to Gateway Boulevard. Restripe northbound approach of Gull Road a[ Oyster Point Boulevard to include aleft-turn lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Harbor Way at the intersection with East Grand Avenue. Add a second eastbound left-turn pocket on Oyster Boulevard at Gateway Boulevard, and a southbound auxiliary lane on Gateway Boulevard. VI-136 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 26 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM''Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Iatersectiou Type Methods V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Ba shore and SB 101 Off-Ram Si nal 1 1.62 F 0.88 E 2 Air rt and Butler Si nal 1 0.56 B 0.37 A 3 ter Point and Dubu ue/NB 101 Ram Si nal 1 1.69 F 1.30 F 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 2.06 F 1.66 F 5 ter Point and Eccles Si nal 1 2.09 F 2.11 F 6 Air rt and Linden/SB 101 On-Ram Si nal 1 0.65 C 0.60 C 7 Air rt and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ram Si nal 1 0.84 D 0.56 B 8 Grand and Linden Si nal 1 0.53 B 0.54 B 9 Grand and Ai rt/NB 101 Ram Si nal 1 1.00 E 0.88 E 10 East Grand and Dubu ue Si nal 1 0.52 B 0.87 E 11 East Grand and Gatewa Si nal 1 1.18 F 0.98 E 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 1.17 F 1.16 F 13 East Grand and Littlefield Si nal 1 1.37 F 1.21 F 14 East Grand and Grandview Si nal 1 0.95 E 1.20 F 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ram Si nal 1 0.92 E 0.33 A 16 Air rt and Produce Si nal 1 0.95 E 0.85 D 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ram Si nal 1 0.85 D 0.85 D 18 South Ai rt and Gatewa Si nal 1 0.85 D 0.90 E 19 South Air rt and NB 101 Ram Si nal 1 0.88 E 0.81 D 20 South Air rt and Belle Air Si nal 1 0.59 C 1.04 F 21 South Air rt and WB 380 On-Ram Si nal 1 0.72 D 0.91 E 22 South Ai rt and EB 380 Off-Ram Si nal 1 0.46 A 0.24 A 23 ter Point/Sister Cities and Air rt Si nal 1 1.25 F 0.90 E 24 Dubu ue and U.S. 101 Ram Si nal 1 0.84 D 0.89 E 25 ter Point and Gull Si nal 1 1.00 E 1.43 F 26 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 1.03 F 0.64 C a Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning. b Traffic signal control was assumed for calculation purposes. VI-137 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION AUGUST 1993 Table 27 U.S. 101 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM Peak' Hour PM Peak Hour Segment Direction Capacity° Volume V/C LOSb Volume V/C LOSb Sierra Point to Oyster Point NB 8,800 9,070 1.03 F 9,920 1.13 F SB 8,800 9,970 1.13 F 9,260 1.OS F Oyster Point to Grand NB 8,800 10,490 1.19 F 9,820 1.12 F SB 8,800 9,130 1.04 F 10,750 1.22 F Grand to South Airport NB 11,000 12,190 1.11 F 8,950 0.81 D SB 8,800 8,200 0.93 E 10,300 1.17 F South Airport to San Bruno NB 13,200 15,200 1.15 F 10,730 0.81 D SB 13,200 10,070 0.76 D 13,420 1.02 F a Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. b Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. VI-138 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 28 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM-'Peak Hour PM'Peak Hour Intersection Type Methods Criterion LOS Criterion LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp All-Way Stop 3 55 F 11 C 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 0.46 A 0.35 A 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Signal 1 0.86 D 0.80 D 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 1.27 F 1.03 F 5 Oyster Point and Eccles Signal 1 1.03 F 0.94 E 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On- Ramp Signal 1 0.59 C 0.58 B 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal 1 0.65 C 0.49 A 8 Grand and Linden Signat 1 0.55 B 0.59 C 9 Grand and AirportMB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.82 D 0.82 D 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 0.39 A 0.65 C 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 0.88 E 0.72 D 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 0.85 D 0.79 D 13 East Grand and Littlefield All-Way Stop 3 272 F 56 F 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 0.44 A 0.52 B 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp One- Way Yield 2 238 C 756 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 0.71 D 0.82 D 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Two- Way Stop 2 60 E 46 E 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 0.59 C 0.80 D 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.53 B 0.61 C 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 0.37 A 0.64 C 21 South Airport and WB 380 On- Ramp Signal 1 0.39 A 0.66 C 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off- Ramp Signal 1 0.33 A 0.22 A 23 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 0.66 C 0.58 B 24 Dubuque and U.S. 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.57 B 0.72 D 25 Oyster Point and Gull Signal 1 0.65 C 0.84 D 26 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 0.54 B 0.45. A a Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning, (2) 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, (3) TRB Circular 373. b Level of service criteria are: V/C for Method 1, reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement for Method 2, delay (in sec.) for Method 3. VI-139 M F d wz a~ w~ a~~ w p U F TA o`.. C¢7 t¢c7F0 L~ ~ H A Q c Z F rx ~ O O~jva"i a w ~ U~wj a H a ~~z ~aa N ra Q~ 0 Q as ~ W Paz F C ~ W A a~W H z~H z a A w as A U A ~ W C i 6 0 $ ~ ." . n ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 "~ G, U 00 ~ ~ A A o4 A A U ~ 0 ~ ~ y 0 0 0 Q Q II `` V C ~ C ~ C C a _0 b q b p b q b p e 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a U w w A w w d _ °~ ~ a ~ ~: ~ o o ~ ~ _8 v a a ,, o w w w w w w ~~ c S ''] ~ o' 0. o ~ - w ~ v' N .-: O .-. ~ p N N pO ~O C, U a O 0 Q ~1 3 a ~ ~ ~ a ~. a °' L w O "~ o T ~ ~ ~ ~ y U W cC ~ ~ N ~ :_ w ~ .r c C 0 ~ ~ v ~ w ~ 0 ~ ~ cC0 O •O G1, :.' ~ C •O P, °r ~ C ~ ~ ~ C ~ h ~ cCC ~ •• d cn r n r •-• ~ ~n ~ r» ,--. C 0 ~ ~ c`~'a .D O ~ h h CC 3 a 0 F ~ M U ~ ~ ~ ~ IUi •y U 7 ~ Op Q! C Fr •C ri R ~ O.'Oy N N .O ~ O '~ N L cC U 3 ~° a w 8 ~ ~~ o 3 ~~ ~w y~ U a o~ O ~' o ~~ u ~~ V N y C U ~ ~y C ~ C ~ O ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ .c >,,~ ca ~ c ~ c0 Oq ,~ C 7 L H w O d >, ~ ~ ~v 5 `two ~ ] F Q w z 0 HA o ~ vO~ ~ F 6 Z F W ¢ a O a ¢~ a pMp~~ O~ F h Q z ,~ o~~ z~ E-~ O~GW UEW.,~ a Q, o ~,, 0 rN A ~ FhL~~1l W E,~wG `'~ C ~ .''~ W a ~ '"~z ~ O W W W k, U k, Q W ` _ ° m ~ V o$ o ~: 0 °a$ 0 o --~ ~ o o -~ ~ o o°o, 0 m a ~ 0 . v e ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 N 0 g ~ oo r o~ ~ o0 0~ -- ., ~' a w w w w w A w A L O ~D N t~ ors ~ N ~--~ '~' ~ 00 O 00 00 00 Q; t~ O C ~ O C O O C L' a ~ pp V" pp~ V^ c„Z Z5 ~ ~ o ~ Q ~S o M ~ 00 [~ O~ l~ °~ [~ N °~ r, Z5 ~ g g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r, ~ ~ r; a, -. -. r. U d 0 ~ z °~° z ~ z °~ z ~ A C 'p a" ~ ~ 7 G4 N a O rr O _ C ~ O ~ O .. V a o a 0 ~ V a Lam. ~~ C ~ % + L O f t..) C7 v~ y~ ~. bq .0 R w t d c .' r, cn u FR .~ C ~' ~~ V ~' U ~ ~ s 3 ~. r~ ~'. ~ ~ U V .C O > ~ U N ~ N N O LLB O y ~~ U y~ ~ C a U E= co ~ .--i 5 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION AUGUST 1993 VI-142 ~m N if N \~ p' ~ u gg- N r v ~ ~ se ti , ~eq `~ ~ H ~ R .I I' FIARBOR Y ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~RPoN ~ q ~'qr ~ ,bJ\ _ • / C\y N 5 \ `^ ` 1bOda r ~ ~pQ~A ~~ C~ Q ~ e0 ~r 1C~ 1J 20 } r c\ ?Jp0 ~T • \ e ~ ASS SSL /~ ~ 'gym v 4 ~ $~0 9 ~ 4S ~ I I ~ ~ y ~~ ~~~ QO~r A E ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, _ _ c w p ~, ~~~ '~~ 'O o~sm ~~o v N W ~~ •h ~. y ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ y W ~ al O t N ~ ~ ~4SL ~y ,Sp~ IC/4 ~QS`\~ O L } , p ~ IC/ ~~ y / 4 UTTLEi1~0 ~~ ~~ O $ ~$ UNOFN ~1 / (~ 4T '~ o py ~0 ~S~J ~~ O ~ J1 R \ \ 5. AIRPORT ~ ~~Q1' O ~} ~ O ~ O = Y 1G~ ~ J J 0 \ \ VI \ ~1 Q ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~,y of ~ SYS -? J { ~ 2~ ~ ~ NO ~r ~ t ~ o ~~ =s ~ 7rr ~ 'o ~J I }~ ~ t G .. M ,F. G + ~ p 4 O F- O pti T p 9 ~~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ W S m t w p pV~ ti ~~y ~~C ~ ens ~ L ~ ~&S CC77 ~ ~ ~~~4 es I ~ Y .G- ~'° '~R~avr ~1 ~ ~ ~ O ~qb bb ~ ~\ \ °J~~ ~~ ~~ S. AIRPORT o<<f~' ~ T ~ ~ ~ " ~ j~ ~ '~0 ~ "sd J10 ~ y l RR/ I[ O / OU9 ~ 4 t ~"' o o ti N O u S~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 o ~ I ~ US ~O~ ° u0`F p .~yy f a S a' ~ ~'O o N y a c a NB c o A y~ 6 V ~ 4~L / oy ~ _ ~yN 5 O°~ ~O ~ ~ ~a ¢ ~ 4y ~,~, ~J ~ J ~ ~ 0 0 ~ R ~I ~ ~ , ,~ ~ ~~ OuBUOUF ~ 1 ~ L sLs AVM31wJ 1 ~ 1 ~~ / ° /~ o ;, ~ fit. ~ 1 oez ~ ~ .~ o~~ A °'L~~ ~ ~O r Syy ~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~~ d u F~c Yn g u CFS ~~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~ L s ~ yyy +~'~qi ~ ~~ OdaN lI! 1~ a _ / 4 N O ~ i - ~\ Tn ~6~o~J1 r h •5 yN I ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~eJ Bs ~ oo ~ ~ ~o ~\ ~ u u g ~~~ y~ ~'O ~ ~ ~QO ~ Q ~ N I I ~ S { i~ „ O r ~ p O ~ ~ oyti ~~O // (( C C ~ ~~ 7 o uNOgy Av ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ JJ ~ ~'W~F'O~v gm s$o I J ~ ~ ~ L V v Pq op Av 3~naoad Nq„~Rr s s < 2C o .- ~ ~ 0 2'A ~ fD ~ > c x e ~ OD ' N ~ dy ~e ~o ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ m ~ ~ ~ r s° Z~ p ~ ° ~ ~ ~ > R < ,y N 3 0 ~4r N N ~ L N GJ Y. N 9~M N A W o ~, Mp x :o .> ;x ~o ~ N ~ N ~O 'n :> -~ e~ N 1~ f'~ 0 cn 0 ~- 3O .~2 a c:a' 0 ~m y b O~ ~~ g ~ ~ O y ~ fD ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ C 5 `d A ~ ^~ ~ a ~ ~ 0 y ' . .. x~ 5 o~ G A ~ ¢ .~ G7 m 0 `y~`~,b 'N o ~ N ~ V mB ~ 'E ,o ~ ~ u SI I~ Iu, hgIPB YY ~- Y ~ oa` 'vRPOR ~ ~'R AO'Pl t . ;~\ ~ aN ,5 O l~ '/ ~Od ~ 0°a~Je ~~ / Jo ~~ OR X10 ~ !O l } J4t 6S3J ~~ I~\ \ ~b p9L i~ ~ ~R GiS ~ (\ `{~ ~ 4~' ~ ~ N" ?J ~ ~ I ~ 1~ y ~ ` Jo ~Ao 'Pr ~ ya" [c ~ 8 ~ b T~ ~ o ,o ~ .o 0 ~ 77jJ v /°~~" ~\\t\ ~~97~ IC / 3p~ L ~ /4q~ 7~ ~[ / ~` y \ _ /~dV UTTLEFlELO R/ ~ ~~ O 4e ~ ~ O UNOFq, ~~ I ~ ~ ~ J (+ Pte, ~/4,~4 ~~0 ~ ~O L 1C~R\ S. AIRPORT ~ 2~ J ~ ~~ ~O J ,S 1G~ ~~ \ \ V1 -R\~ ~1 ~ i o 03 -~ 1 ~ / ~/~ ~J ,!s ~~ ~~,~ Y u ~y .~ o '} y o uv G~ ~ ~o A ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ d O ` '`~~ ~1~ L » S ~ 4 ~-- eso ~ u ~ N o ~~~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~/ ~ I I t' i 4 ~ S0 1, ~ ~L I o ~O / '~R~'o'vT ~/ 1 4 ~~ ~ J mo~ L 7 ~ ~\ ~ ° y~ ~°'o ~ h 1 (S~. AIRPORT 6S ~~ I 1 1 ~ ~ c j~ ~ I s~~ \~ „o ~' \ ~ y ~~ ° ~r ~`f ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ U n ~P u 0 y NOI C ~ C o A ~ yq\i ~// oo\ aN 5 boa Gje~, ~Oi ~ko ~~'e°1 ~~ / L u I u I~ f' i y f o\ a~'o~ K \ y~ o`BUOVf ~ /-~ ~. 4 t___ soi AVM3IYJ 1 h 1 1~ n o ° ~ " 5 G .. 4t. ~ ' oos~ ~ T s ~ ~ ~ d,t\ /y or ~ ~ u °~i, '7~ o ~~ {r A oa -Z ~ u °o e o~o ~ °,y'~ ~ ~ r ° ~ 'C. sc ~ ~ S~\ `/ ai` la0aan ~!~r' o y /~~~ ~71 ' N \ o ~ n ~ i0 Gti T ~t ~ ~ .5 ~ r ~ ~ \y ~ ~ ~ ~L\ J ° 7J .~ i JO~ ~ ~ ~~3 ~, ~ odaN ~ coL ~ Y. & lS f $$ ~ of y ~ ~ G ~ ~ r 0'6 vi z 3onaoad ~ti ~~ N ° ¢ L ~ I I _ '?~,,,} o b~ gg y, .~ °M O~ r ~ p i ^1 o ,r ~/d ~ c ~C ~ uN~' .1V ~,~\\~ t~~~ .~ \ 7~ J~OJ kl~O .IV 11CC ~ !G Z I r r ~ O LP v ~ N O,P AV 30n00ad NRPoRl ~ ~ ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~~ dad o 4 ~9~ ~ F~ ~ ~- N y C '` < ~ ~~~ cR N ~ Z ' ~ N N 3 - N W N ~ ~ B~ N A W ~ ~ ~ ao ~o .> ~O . ,~ :> ~v e :y e ~ ,~ :> 1~ n 0 cry 0 cn }~. a ~~ 0 ~m O ~ ~1 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . y . D O ~~~ ~ ~ °~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~'C a ~ `~' ~ ~ y ~. w ~ x~,•~ s ~A~ moo,-, N o m N ~: `6o N '~ ~ e ~ N V ~t "' Se ~ IWt80R ~ Z'1 \~ 'bS ~RPoRl ~ ~ J J~O 0`1 5 ~~ ~OdUN aJ 1C ~~ ~~ 0 ~\ `~0 tJ \ le ~ + o ~~S pat ~~ ~ 20 K ~ ~0 6 p Q ~ 00 \, ~ ~ I ~ y ~ ~ 1. r ~~' °N +I I c ~ o o ~i o ~ o,~ ~o ~ o ~O o~ `Im 4f. 4 N W 4 p `' r ~~+ OD y aD ~ ~ r W ~P` ~y W ~ o ~ N ~c~ 0 r -/ .i ~/ 4r` \~ /p .~OUO\ _~( ~i0` \ V~ ]711 ~/ r' R/ J\1 ~~ R \ ~ R/ (/ 7`~ ~~ ~7 R \ \ O ~ P" UNOEN ~-I~ l ~ )0 y ~ y,~ ~ ~j a J2o\ ~ y ~ ~C y S ~ O S. AIRPORT ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ \r ~ O ~ \~ R ~ ~~ s ~ u ~r o ~ \ VI y ~ 0 / ~.~ yb /~ ~ '(t 64S JOS ~ / ~ / ~~y ~ I JO ~ ~ r~ o 'DeO ~ ~t,,~ ' 7r Yii o u ~ ~y &' ~ U y`o A ~~ m o ~ A ~ m ~p`v W y 71 t' i Y ~ ~s i Y j- so NgcbRr f~ ~ I~ ~\ IOO oo ~!,G 11 ` ` O ~ ~ R S. NRPORi / 1 (~ I 1 c~ Y ~~ J~0 3J ~ I 0 ` ~\L O ~~ Ov y~4 /~l c v c g u os~ ~ ~ / ~ o I I ~ us ~ ° 6 ~ ~ o r ~~F p ~ ~ ~ $ g 7 ~ a R,7,p 80~ ~ ~ `~ ~ p~~ .S ~~ ~ lb~~N ~ '°~ I ~ SP ~¢~ ~~'~ ~ _ g N ~ ~ ~ ~uf r ~ AVM31r0 T t\ S ~ ` Tin of ~ ~ 0 ~ '+ ^a s~o~ /y ~ f~, ~, S ~ \ \ ii ~ s SSL o/c --,~, " 75 c N Gti .~ O L 5 ~ O~ ~ oy ~ r RTS,~ poi '+ ~ ~ ~~O p~~ ~ ~ y ~ o ~ fcC~fS ~ C ~~ 411 ~/ o~` y R/ p~4 ~ ;Uq, ~ S~' ~odar+ ~ cf" v ~, ~ % 4 ~ ~C ~ c ~ I I ~ ~ J it ~ i0 OZ9 ~ n '~6 r t ~ t ~odtin ' ~ I ~ ~~ ~1 ~ \ ~ H f ~''~~' ~ u ~ ~r ?" ~ o D V~ t, o~ I Yr ~ ~ , z ~~ ~ naoad ~ r h Q Z I T ~ ~ '`'~~ ~ o ~ A ~ . ~ ii ~ pL" t 'P$~ ,. I^ui ~' ~ 8 0 ~ L ~ O dG ~O~ ~ ti ~/4 y C ~ K ~ J Uiy ? AV ~ ~\~ ~~ y ~ J ~O Q, 1C\ ~~O AV ~ 2~ ~Od I J J ~ ~~ L V V ~ OP nv 3~naoad v RPo'PT g C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^ O /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C dN t ~ oe 4 ,e d ~ ~ > s ~~ m ~ '~ < ~ ~ `~"~ ~R N n ~' Z ~? ~ F1 ~ N N 3 r N N ,r W ~ N A W ~ }M b~ >o .~ ~O ,~ :z ~a N ~ N n ~ a ~ :~ m 1~ n ~~ 0 0 a a O• ~m 0 ~ ~~ ~~ V7 ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ a c ~, 0 °::; w ~ n ~ i--I ~ ~ ~. y ^ °' ~ -~ m ~ o ~ ^~ ~ o b 0 `° ~ ~. ~ w Q 5 Q ~ L• ~+r. ... A rn N a~'P~~~o N S.o V y~ y~ N L~ tS ?S ^r v ~ Se ~ t'R.o 'S p e~ 4~`y ~` ~yJ HARBOR II it Y~"I 'URPZ1pl _ / } F~ ~R l ~' ~ S ye UN ~\l~ t/ tyod pbdJ~ ec\~ ~C ? ~ ~ ' eo ~ Io ~ls , )b ~\ ° ~J ~r '~[t J ~ °aZ i~ ~ tie C °`y ~ , ' / ~ ~ * J Om y 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~~ J~ vq0 P~ 'I I L ° c ~ ~ NN N Np N $ ~ Y o ~ ~ !~ ~ I b J ~ I O fO O ~ 3S ~ ~ U Z ~„ W ~~'`' ~ d~ W c~ W Lpq N 1o KSSS/ ~i0~ ~ R~ ,}~ \ LIRLEFlELD ~ ~~ ° [ny°E./y _ l l / ~ )ZJ NN 1 4 ~O ~o R/ R ~ ~ ~ S. AIRPORT ~ ? Ott / ~ o ~}' ~ J ~~ ° ~ e~Z° J ~„ 1C ~ 0 / ~ ~J ~~ ~'~ ~~ P~J J ° 6s0 ~ 100 -~ JS ed ~ ~~/ QP 4 ?gyp ~r } b ~ \ J ,~ J Ld °`~~' 1 ~ I ~ ~ ~Y ~ 4yO 4 4b ' /' ~ / ~ o S n ~ ~ u 2 f i O `"O~ A ~ ~~ m o n + ~ m ~ W ~'~~4 ~ 1~ ~ U ~ L z~° .I I' ~--- eto f ~ Y ~ is ~ ~ t e0 _' I ~ ~$8 NgpOA`T ~~ ~L ~ m ~~ , ,~ 17J\ _ 1~~~0110 QT ° y ° 5. AIRPORT oo~ ~~ III o ,r i ~ ~ c~t 4 , ,ZJ ))°_ 2p~ ~ ti $ ~~ ~ o~e r ~~E ~ ~ ~S ~ ° y,, ~ o ~ c. V U O~ ~ ~. 4s ~ rr $ ° ~ T ~ ~S ~°, ~„ ~ o ~~ A ~ u s ~ ° N N O ~ C ° A ~ 6 ~ °~~ ~ °01 yN .5 ~ IDI ~4p ~46yL U ~ u g U ~" y '~ ~~ Ove`OVE Y0 np ot ~ ~~ ° ~ " 5 ~ 4~. ~ ~ AVµ31 I otzl ~ n a 0 4L v ~ ~0 O N ~ ~ r 4L ~ ~ ° ~ a \ ~p ~` ~'O R/ °pr ~ ~~O ~ l~/ qoN` q° ~ fcc/P N s a ~ SVt '(1~ / g7 r ~ i ~ h ('~ .5 ~ \ ~ IC~K\~ C\~ 7 ~(~~ J~J s ~ J ,o ~J~ ~ ~~ pdyN f 1 I lb °\C ~ ~ u S ~ 5 \ ", L 4~ /~ ojJ iJ O ~r JJ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 `~~ ~ /~/ 4S ~ /y 30nO0tld oti L I ~ ~~r ~ ~ c ~ u A ~ P ~,. F ~ 0 ~ Q 444 2^I / (/ryO~~IV ~}\~ ~ y \ ~ ~~ J l J r ~ ~ O J ~~O ~1V o h 'J zm i I J O V V ~ V vq O,P d ti ~~ 3onooa RPoRr 6~ C r Qr X71 to Y r /~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ OdbN ., ~ ~ ~ f[' T : z 19 ~ m 0 ~~ Fr>- ~ ~ '+, ~~P ~ ~ Z V ~ 7r N ~ a° A N 3 ~ ~ ~ y~A+ N N W > ~ ~ ~p0 ~ / W .A ~~ .> ~v ~a N ^ ~ A r ~ ' ..t trf N ~~ A O f7 0 c.~ 0 a cn b~ A H 0 y~m y N ,~y 0 -i ~Q to 8 a 3 w 5 A ~ ~ ..y N O O A W ;~s ^ ~ A ~ A ^~ A O . u,. PP a 9 ~ y W AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 5. No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, land in the East of 101 Area is likely to continue in its current use, with pressure for incremental changes allowed by existing General Plan categories and zoning. High density development could occur in the future; especially on current vacant lands such as Shearwater and within the Gateway Specific Plan area, due to infill industrial and office development. The current allowable development in the East of 101 Area is greater than that allowed under any of the three Area Plan alternatives. Thus, the potential impacts on traffic and the circulation system would be greater under the No Project Alternative than under any of the Plan alternatives. Development in the area is likely to occur slowly and on aproject-by-project basis due to current market conditions; however, long-term impacts are likely to include severe traffic congestion and circulation impacts. In addition, bicyclists would not be encouraged to use the East of 101 Area due to a lack of improvements to the existing bicycle circulation system. VI-151 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION AUGUST 1993 VI-152 AUGUST 1993 G. Noise EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES NOISE The proposed project would have a significant impact on noise exposure if it would create: Land use incompatibility within the project area due to conflicts with standards for community noise. • A substantial increase in noise levels in areas adjacent to the project site. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Noise and Land Use Compatibility. The Directed Growth Alternative would be primarily oriented toward planned commercial and planned industrial development, and would not include any residential development. Hotels could be included in the planned commercial and coastal commercial areas. The planned commercial development would be primarily located along the Highway 101/Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard corridor. As noted in the Existing Conditions Report, noise levels in the area are as high as a CNEL of 80 dBA along Highway 101. The CNEL is not less than 60 dBA anywhere in the entire East of 101 Area. The highest instantaneous noise levels across the site are generated by aircraft flying over the site on the Visual Shoreline Departure Route. By the year 2000, when Stage 2 aircraft are eliminated from the Airport, the highest maximum noise levels would be generated by the loudest Stage 3 aircraft. Aircraft noise projections show that instantaneous maximum noise levels due to aircraft flyovers will be as high as 88 dBA south of Colma Creek, 87 dBA between Colma Creek and East Grand Avenue and 84 dBA north of East Grand Avenue. The hotel component of the planned commercial and coastal commercial areas have the potential to be impacted by aircraft overflight noise. Since hotel uses are transient uses, and are therefore not as sensitive to long-term noise exposure as are permanent residential uses, it is recommended that interior maximum instantaneous noise levels not exceed SS dBA as proposed by the FAA. Atypical hotel room with standard windows will reduce noise levels by VI-153 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES NOISE AUGUST 1993 about 25 dBA. Normal construction would result in noise levels which would probably exceed the 55 dBA criterion in hotel rooms. Policy NO-1 of the Area Plan requires adequate noise attenuation for hotel rooms. Office, retail and industrial uses would generally be compatible with the noise level throughout the East of 101 Area. Depending upon the use and the location of individual buildings some noise attenuation may be required under Policy NO-2. Existing open space and parks in the East of 101 Area may be impacted by noise levels, primarily those associated with aircraft flyovers. Though it is possible to mitigate ground source noise levels through park and open space design, overhead sources cannot be effectively reduced. Though high instantaneous noise levels are prevalent in the East of 101 Area, open space and recreation opportunities should still be provided for area employees and visitors. b. Traffic Noise. The East of 101 Area Plan would result in increased traffic, and therefore, increased traffic noise levels along the streets serving the site. Noise level increases were calculated for each of the streets in the area under each of the alternatives. The following conclusions apply to all three alternatives, including the Directed Growth Alternative. • There would be no noise increase greater than 3 dBA on any street west of Highway 101. A 3 dBA increase in the average traffic noise level is barely detectable and is not considered significant. The highest noise level increases would occur on streets which are currently commercial and industrially oriented and where future development would take place. These include the North Access Road, East Grand Avenue (east of Grandview Drive), and Oyster Point Boulevard. Noise levels along these streets would increase by 4 to 6 dBA for all of the alternatives. Since the land uses in this area are industrial and commercial in nature, and since existing traffic volumes are relatively low where the greatest noise level increases are expected, these impacts are not significant. c. Construction Noise. Impact NO-D1: As the East of 101 Area is built out, each construction project will introduce short-term construction noise into the vicinity immediately surrounding the area. VI-154 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES NOISE In some cases more than one project may be underway. Until buildout of the area, there will be construction noise at one location or another. Construction noise impacts are generally localized and depend upon the distance from the nearest receptor to the construction project, the construction activity underway, and the type of use adjacent to the construction site. These impacts will have to be analyzed and evaluated for each project to determine their significance. Mitigation Measure NO-Dl: Construction noise impacts will be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine necessary noise mitigation measures, and such measures should be applied as conditions of project approval. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Noise and Land Use Compatibility. Similar to the Directed Growth Alternative, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would have noise impacts related to hotel and commercial uses, which would be mitigated by Policies NO-1 and NO-2 of the Area Plan. However, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative includes a residential component that is not included in the Directed Growth Alternative. Impact NO-Pl: Residential development would create a potential conflict with noise levels in the East of 101 Area. The Koll site would be developed with high density residential development. This site is at the most northerly portion of the East of 101 Area Plan and is exposed primarily to noise emanating from the freeway and the railroad, although maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by aircraft will reach 84 dBA outside of these units. The proposed criterion for residential use is that maximum instantaneous noise levels not exceed 50 dBA indoors and that the CNEL not exceed 45 dBA indoors. Standard residential construction would not provide the noise reduction required to meet these criteria. This is a potentially significant impact, but it could be mitigated through the construction of specially designed exterior walls and ceilings, as well as windows and entry doors. Double glazed sound-rated windows would probably also be necessary. While it is feasible to achieve the required noise reduction, it would require a great attention to detail during the design and construction phases. Outdoor noise levels exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA across the Koll site. While it would be possible through site planning to provide outdoor areas shielded from the freeway and the railroad, it would be impossible to reduce the outdoor noise generated by aircraft overflights. Since noise levels in outdoor use area VI-155 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES NOISE could not be adequately reduced, this would constitute a significant unavoidable impact. b. Traffic Noise. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would result in increased traffic and increased traffic noise levels along the streets serving the area. Noise level increases were calculated for each of the streets in the area, and would be similar to those discussed under the Directed Growth Alternative. These impacts are not considered significant. c. Construction Noise. Impact NO-P2: As the East of 101 Area is built out, each construction project will introduce short-term construction noise into the vicinity immediately surrounding the area. In some cases more than one project may be underway. Until buildout of the area there will be construction noise at one location or another. Construction noise impacts are generally localized and depend upon the distance from the nearest receptor to the construction project, the construction activity underway, and the type of use adjacent to the construction site. These impacts will have to be analyzed and evaluated for each project to determine their significance. Mitigation Measure NO-P2: Construction noise impacts should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine necessary noise mitigation measures, and such measures should be applied as conditions of project approval. 3. Market Oriented Alternative a. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Similar to the Directed Growth Alternative, the Market Oriented Alternative would have noise impacts related to hotel and commercial uses, which would be mitigated by Policies NO-1 and NO-2 of the Area Plan. However, the Market Oriented Alternative includes a residential component that is not included in the Directed Growth Alternative. This component would not only be on the Koll site, as in the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, but would also be located on the Shearwater Site. Impact NO-Ml: Residential development would create a potential conflict with noise levels in the East of 101 Area. VI-156 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES NOISE The Koll site and Shearwater site would be developed with high density residential development. These sites are at the most northerly portion of the East of 101 Area Plan and are exposed primarily to noise emanating from the freeway and the railroad, although maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by aircraft will reach 84 dBA outside of these units. The proposed criterion for residential use is that maximum instantaneous noise levels not exceed 50 dBA indoors and that the CNEL not exceed 45 dBA indoors. Standard residential construction would not provide the noise reduction requisite to meet these criteria. This is a potentially significant impact, but it could be mitigated through the construction of specially designed exterior walls and ceilings, as well as windows and entry doors. Double glazed sound-rated windows would probably also be necessary. While it is feasible to achieve the required noise reduction, it would require a great attention to detail during the design and construction phases. Outdoor noise levels exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA across the Koll and Shearwater site. While it would be possible through site planning to provide outdoor areas shielded from the freeway and the railroad, it would be impossible to reduce the outdoor noise generated by aircraft overflights. Since outdoor noise levels could not be adequately reduced, this would constitute a significant unavoidable impact. b. Traffic Noise. The Market Oriented Alternative would result in increased traffic and increased traffic noise levels along the streets serving the area. Noise level increases were calculated for each of the streets in the area and would be similar to those discussed under the Directed Growth Alternative. These impacts are not considered significant. c. Construction Noise. Impact NO-M2: As the East of 101 Area is built out, each construction project would introduce short-term construction noise into the vicinity immediately surrounding the area. In some cases more than one project may be underway. Until buildout of the area there will be construction noise at one location or another. Construction noise impacts are generally localized and depend upon the distance from the nearest receptor to the construction project, the construction activity underway, and the type of use adjacent to the construction site. These impacts will have to be analyzed and evaluated for each project to determine their significance. VI-157 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES NOISE Mitigation Measure NO-M2: Construction noise impacts should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine necessary noise mitigation measures, and such measures should be applied as conditions of project approval. 4. No Project Alternative The possible development of housing on the Koll site would introduce noise sensitive land uses into the area. These uses could be substantially impacted by the instantaneous noise levels generated by aircraft flyovers, as described for the Planned Commercial Emphasis and Market Oriented Alternatives. Other uses could have appropriate noise mitigation included in their construction, as required in the Draft Area Plan. The noise environment of the East of 101 Area would not significantly change with the No Project Alternative. As development is introduced into the area through existing policies and regulations, traffic volumes on the local street network would be increased and, in turn, traffic noise levels would gradually Increase. Construction-related noise impacts would be similar to those described for the other three alternatives. VI-158 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS H. Hazardous Materials For the purposes of this Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on the environment if it would: • Create a potential public health hazard. • Result in the introduction of sensitive land uses to areas which are unsafe due to the presence of hazardous materials. Introduce activities to the area which would result in the use, production, or disposal of materials in such a way that these materials would pose a hazard to human, animal, or plant populations. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) The Directed Growth Alternative would not result in the introduction of sensitive land uses to areas which are unsafe due to the presence of hazardous materials, provided that standard regulations regarding hazardous materials use and clean up are followed. As described in the Existing Conditions Report, agencies such as USEPA, CaIEPA, and the RWQCB enforce State and federal laws governing the generation, handling, processing, treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials. These laws require the cleanup or containment of hazardous waste contamination that poses a threat to human, animal, or plant populations. As noted in the Existing Conditions Report, there are seven vacant or underutilized sites with known toxic contamination in the area, and approximately 45 other sites with known contamination, underground storage tanks or both. Only those for which remediation and containment efforts have resulted in acceptable reductions in contamination and health risks are considered to be remediated for occupation or.development. Inasmuch as remediation efforts are either underway, planned, or mandated prior to development in the Plan area, none of the alternatives would introduce sensitive land uses to areas which are unsafe due to the presence of hazardous materials. VI-159 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS In addition, the Directed Growth Alternative would not introduce activities involving the use, production, or disposal of materials in such a way that these materials would pose a hazard to human, animal, or plant populations. New activities in the Planned Industrial and Planned Commercial areas which would involve the generation, use, or disposal or hazardous materials would also be regulated by appropriate local, State and federal agencies. Agency regulations would provide for the protection of human, animal, and plant populations. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, known toxic sites within the Plan area would be designated as either Residential, Planned Industrial, Planned Commercial, or Coastal Commercial land uses. As with the Directed Growth Alternative, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would not result in the introduction of sensitive land uses to areas which are unsafe due to the presence of hazardous materials. Agencies responsible for hazardous materials regulation would require remediation of hazardous waste sites. Remediated sites would be acceptable for occupation or development. Also, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would not introduce activities involving the use, production, or disposal of materials in such a way that these materials would pose a hazard to human, animal, or plant populations. Sites will be suitable for development once hazardous materials have been removed or contained to the satisfaction of State and federal agencies. Site remediation costs for the residential land uses may be greater than for other land uses, due to more stringent cleanup and health risk evaluation requirements. Thus, remediation costs associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative could be greater than those associated with the Directed Growth Alternative. Impact I-IAZ-Pl: Development of the Market Oriented Alternative would result in residential development on the Koll property, possibly exposing people to hazardous landfill gases. Under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, the Koll site would be developed with residential land uses. Prior to development of this site, hazardous substances would be remediated to acceptable levels, as mandated by State and federal agencies. The degree of cleanup required for a residential land use most likely will be greater than that required for a Planned Commercial or Planned Industrial land use. VI-160 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-P1: Development of the Koll site would require a gas collection system and continued monitoring for hazardous landfill gases. In addition, along-term exposure risk analysis should be conducted prior to residential occupancy at the site. 3. Market Oriented Alternative Under the Market Oriented Alternative, known toxic sites within the Plan area would be designated as either Residential, Planned Industrial, Light Industrial, Planned Commercial, or Coastal Commercial land uses. The Market Oriented Alternative would not result in the introduction of sensitive land uses to areas which are unsafe due to the presence of hazardous materials. Agencies responsible for hazardous materials regulation would require remediation of hazardous waste sites. Remediated sites would be acceptable for occupation or development. Neither would the Market Oriented Alternative introduce activities involving the use, production, or disposal of materials in such a way that these materials would pose a hazard to human, animal, or plant populations. Appropriate agencies would regulate hazardous material handling. Sites will be suitable for development once hazardous materials have been removed or contained to the satisfaction of State and federal agencies. Because the Market Oriented Alternative entails the most residential development of the three alternatives, remediation costs associated with the alternative could be greater than those associated with either the Directed Growth or the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. Impact HAZ-M1: Development of the Market Oriented Alternative would result in residential development on the Koll property, possible exposing people to hazardous landfill gases. Under the Market Oriented Alternative, the Koll site would be developed with residential land uses. Prior to development of this site, hazardous substances would be remediated to acceptable levels, as mandated by State and federal agencies. The degree of cleanup required for a residential land use most likely will be greater than that required for a Planned Commercial or Planned Industrial land use. VI-161 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-M1: Development of the Koll site would require a gas collection system and continued monitoring for hazardous landfill gases. In addition, along-term exposure risk analysis should be conducted prior to residential occupancy at the site. Impact HAZ-M2: Development of the Market Oriented Alternative would result in residential development on the Shearwater site, possibly exposing people to hazardous materials. The Shearwater site would also be designated as a residential land use under the Market Oriented Alternative. As with the Koll site, more stringent standards would apply to the cleanup of this site because of its residential land use category. Mitigation Measure HAZ-M2: A health risk assessment evaluating the effects of residual pollutants to long term exposure should be conducted prior to site development. 4. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would not result in the introduction of sensitive land uses to areas which are unsafe due to the presence of hazardous materials. Agencies such as USEPA, Cal EPA, and the RWQCB enforce State and federal laws governing the generation, handling, processing, treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials. These laws require the cleanup or containment of hazardous wastes that pose a threat to human, animal, or plant populations. Cleanup of hazardous material sites are either underway, planned, or mandated prior to development of properties in the Plan area. The timing of cleanup efforts may be prolonged through the No Project Alternative due a lack of encouragement of development of the East of 101 Area. VI-162 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS I. Geotechnical Factors For the purposes of this Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project would have a significant impact if it would: Conflict with adopted geotechnical policies of the City of South San Francisco or other responsible agencies. • Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Fill Soils. Buildings and infrastructure placed on fill may be subjected to settlement. The amount and rate of settlement would depend on the consistency of the fill (how well it was compacted) and the constituent materials of the fill. It would also depend on the length of time since fill placement. Cut slopes in fill material generally slough or fail at shallower angles than cut slopes in native soils. The safety of slopes in fill material depends mainly on the degree of compaction of the fill. Even in fill that was placed under relatively controlled conditions, harmful material, such as pockets of garbage or organics, may be encountered during excavation. This is to be expected unless the fill operation was monitored by an agency or company that has accepted responsibility for the condition of the fill. Policies GEO-1 through GEO-6 address building on fill soils. The policies include requirements for geotechnical investigations and specific construction and structural requirements for buildings on fill. With these policies, no significant impacts are anticipated. VI-163 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS b. Landfills. Buildings and infrastructure placed on landfill areas may experience large and continuing settlements. Unlike fill composed of inorganic soil which will settle in a predictable fashion with the amount of settlement decreasing with time, landfill with varying proportions of garbage and organic material continues to settle almost indefinitely as the components decompose. In addition, excavation in a landfill area may turn up extensive hazardous material. Policy GEO-4 addresses requirements for developments on landfill sites. These requirements include systems to mitigate for gas which is produced by the decomposition of buried garbage. Implementation of these policies will result in no expected significant impacts. c. Slopes. Existing slopes may become unstable if loading, such as additional fill, is placed at the top of the slope or if material at the toe of the slope is removed. Existing slopes may be damaged by erosion if the vegetative cover is removed or if runoff is directed over the slope. Policies GEO-7 through GEO-9 provide for mitigation of potentially hazardous conditions related to slopes, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. d. Liquefaction. Part of the East of 101 Area is underlain by loose, saturated sand layers that may be susceptible to seismically-induced liquefaction. Liquefaction of these layers may be expressed at the surface as settlement which can cause damage to buildings and infrastructure. In extreme cases where the liquefaction causes ground rupture, loss of support of structural elements is possible. Where liquefaction prone layers underlie sloping ground or abrupt changes in elevation (such as river banks), instability can occur because of sliding along layers weakened by the liquefaction. Even very shallow slopes can be affected. Slope failures could damage buildings, utilities and parking areas. Policy GEO-10 requires a geotechnical investigation of those areas prone to seismically-induced liquefaction. In addition, Policy GEO-11 requires development to be built in a manner which removes the significant risks associated with liquefaction. With implementation of these policies, no significant impacts are anticipated. VI-164 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS e. Seismic Hazards. Ground shaking during an earthquake can cause structural and other damage, and in extreme cases structural collapse. The severity of ground shaking will depend on the proximity and magnitude of the seismic event. The severity can be increased by amplification of the shock waves when passing through layers of soft material such as those that underlie part of the site. Policy GEO-12 requires that buildings and infrastructure be built according to the appropriate Uniform Building Code. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Evidence of the existence of potentially active faults through part of the East of 101 Area exists. Buildings and infrastructure constructed over a fault may be subjected to damage from fault rupture if the fault is active. Structural damage could be severe and collapse is possible. Utilities could be severed and roadways truncated. Faults in the fault zone through part of the site should be mapped. The equivalent of an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone should be established in the area based on this mapping. Within this zone individual sites should be checked for the presence of faults and their location relative to proposed development. Structures designed for human occupancy or critical public facilities should not be located within a zone extending 50 feet either side of a fault. Policies GEO-13 and GEO-14 provide for this mapping and for appropriate setbacks, so no significant impacts are anticipated. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative Impacts for the Planned Commercial Alternative would be similar to those discussed for the Directed Growth Alternative. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable with implementation of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, so no significant impacts are expected. 3. Market Oriented Alternative Impacts for the Market Oriented Alternative would be similar to those discussed for the Directed Growth Alternative. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable with the implementation of this alternative, so no significant impacts are expected. 4. No Project Alternative Generally, if the No Project Alternative were selected, no additional impacts would be expected. Development would still be reviewed on a project by project basis and required mitigation would be implemented to prevent the potential hazards associated with fill areas and seismicity in the East of 101 Area. Development would require design by a licensed engineer and VI-165 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN E[R IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS AUGUST 1993 applicable building codes would be adhered to. However, the City would not have the explicit geotechnical safety policies for the area that are included in the Area Plan. The unknown location of the Coyote Point Fault would be the primary hazard associated with the No Project Alternative. Buildings and infrastructure constructed over a fault may be subject to damage from fault rupture if the fault is active. Severe damage could be possible to structures, utilities, and roadways. The Area Plan proposes mapping of the Coyote Point fault and, therefore, would prevent new development from locating directly on an active fault. VI-166 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES J. Biological Resources According to CEQA Guidelines and for the purposes of this EIR, the project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact if it would: • Cause a substantial reduction in plant, fish, or wildlife habitat. • Create a substantial interference with movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife, or interfere with the use of the adjacent bay and tidal mudflats. • Cause a loss of rare, threatened or endangered plant, fish, or wildlife species. • Result in a loss of sensitive vegetation or wildlife habitats. • Result in substantial degradation of surface water quality. (Impacts to water quality are assessed separately in Section O.) The Area Plan could have either direct or indirect impacts on biological resources. Direct impacts are those directly caused by a project's physical alteration of the environment. Direct impacts include developing open space areas which serve as wildlife habitats, filling of wetlands, or other site disturbances. Indirect impacts are those which may occur as a result of, rather than as part of, a proposed development. Indirect impacts include disturbance to wildlife resulting from increased noise, glare, or predation by pets, interference with migrating waterfowl's or shorebirds' use of the Bay, or degradation of surface water quality due to increased runoff. The three proposed development alternatives differ from one another primarily in the type of proposed land use to be constructed (industrial, commercial, and residential). All three alternatives have incorporated identically designated open space areas, primarily in the form of open space set-backs from the Bay shore. In each of the three alternatives the acreage to be developed is similar. As such, the proposed project's effect on biological resources would be similar for the three development alternatives. VI-167 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Direct Impacts. Most development under this alternative, like the other Plan alternatives, would be located in previously disturbed areas. Development would not have a direct adverse affect on sensitive biological resources associated with the San Bruno Mountain area because the East of 101 Area is physically separated from San Bruno Mountain by Highway 101. Development of vacant sites would result in the loss of individual plants and wildlife which are not rare, threatened or endangered. This habitat is not considered sensitive, is relatively abundant throughout the region, and is degraded at the project site. The loss of these biological resources would be a less-than significant impact of the Area Plan. Project development would also entail the loss of non-native grassland vegetation and annual grassland habitat. The proposed alternatives would not result in filling portions of the Bay or tidal mudflat areas, or disturbance to the estuarine wildlife habitat. Neither direct interference with use of the adjacent Bay and mudflats by migrating waterfowl and shorebirds, nor direct degradation of the water quality of the Bay is anticipated. The Directed Growth Alternative would have no impact on these biological resources. The Directed Growth Alternative would have the potential to have direct impacts on wetlands and on sensitive plant and animal species. These impacts are mitigated through Area Plan policies, as described below. (1) Wetlands. Without contravening policies, the Area Plan could result in the loss of wetlands and the habitats they provide in the areas mapped in Figure 44 of the Existing Conditions Report. Sensitive wetland resources which could be affected by Plan area development include northern coastal salt marsh vegetation, saline emergent wetland wildlife habitat acreage, coastal and valley freshwater marsh vegetation, seasonal wetlands, and fresh emergent wetland wildlife habitat. This habitat is considered sensitive, and its acreage has declined substantially in the region. Some jurisdictional wetland disturbances would be mitigated under State and federal policies. Disturbance to more than one acre of jurisdictional wetlands could require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and review by the USFWS. In addition, disturbance to a streambed, channel or canal will require execution of a Streambed Alteration VI-168 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Agreement with CDFG (1603 "permit"). All of these permitting resource agencies have adopted "no net loss" policies for protection of wetlands. Should results of requisite seasonal biological field surveys indicate the presence of State or federally listed species which would be subject to "take", consultation with USFWS and CDFG would be required. An "incidental take" permit from USFWS and a "2081 permit" from CDFG would be necessary for the project to proceed. Both agencies would require that impacts to listed species be avoided or reduced to the greatest extent feasible, and both would require specific mitigation to reduce impacts, based on their severity. Specific projects affecting one or more acres of wetlands within the Plan area would be subject to USFWS mitigation requirements, and proposal of streambed alterations would be subject to CDFG mitigation requirements. However, individual projects affecting less than one acre of non-streambed wetland would not be subject to federal mitigation requirements. The policies of the Area Plan are self mitigating in that they provide for wetlands protection. Policies NR-1 and NR-2 of the Plan specifically provide for the delineation and protection of wetland resources on a project by project basis. (2) Sensitive Species. Four sensitive plant species, San Francisco owl's clover and Diablo helianthella, Mission Delores Campion, and wedge-leaf horkelia, potentially occur in the area. Although none of the species are officially listed as rare, threatened or endangered by the State or federal government, all have been designated as Category 2 federal candidate species, and all are included on California Native Plant Society (GNPs) List 1B. While habitats in the East of 101 Area are considered marginal for these species, the potential for these sensitive species to occur in the area does exist. Two sensitive wildlife species are known to exist in the East of 101 Area, while four others have a high potential of occurring within the area. Another 30 wildlife species of special concern are known to exist in the San Francisco Bay region. The two sensitive species known to occur in the area, the San Francisco garter snake and California clapper rail, are listed as Endangered by the State and federal government. Specific data concerning current status and distribution in the area for these two species are lacking. The four species with high potential for occurring within the area, include the San Francisco forktail damselfly (federal category 2), salt marsh common yellowthroat (federal category 2 and State Species of Concern), salt marsh vagrant shrew (federal category 1 and State Species of Concern), and salt marsh harvest VI-169 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AUGUST 1993 mouse (federal and State Endangered). Loss of any sensitive species could be a significant impact, but may be mitigable. While the existence of these plant and animal species on a given site cannot be determined at an Area Plan level of detail, requisite site biological resource evaluations, which would be conducted at project-by-project stage, would indicate whether these plant species occupy the area in question. Policies NR- 4, NR-5 and NR-6 provide for site surveys and protection of sensitive species. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. In addition, a federal "incidental take" permit and a State "2081 permit" requirements would be required should project implementation result in a "take" of listed species. However, Policy NR-6 of the Area Plan specifically protects sensitive wildlife species. No significant impacts to wildlife are anticipated from implementation of the Directed Growth Alternative. b. Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts to biological resources, could result from increased levels of activity and noise, light glare, vibration, invasive recreational use, predation by pets, and introduction of exotic species. The severity of these indirect impacts would depend upon the final land use selected in each development area. Interference with use of the Bay and mudflats by migrating waterfowl and shorebirds as a result of these disturbances would also vary according to land use. For example, residential development would be more likely to increase disturbance from invasive recreational use and predation by pets, while industrial development would be more likely to increase disturbance from noise, light glare, and vibration, especially for 24-hour per day operations. Because the Directed Growth Alternative would include considerable Planned and Light Industrial land uses, but would include no residential development, the potential for invasive recreational use and pet predation to affect wildlife adversely is small, while noise, light glare, and vibration may disturb biological resources moderately. Policy NR-7 would reduce the potential for impacts associated with the interference with use of the Bay and tidal mudflats by migrating waterfowl and shorebirds to a level of insignificance. Indirect degradation of surface water quality could affect fish and wildlife species in local water bodies. A discussion of water quality impacts is contained in Section O of this EIR, and water quality impacts would be mitigated through Plan Policies PF-10 and PF-11. VI-170 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Direct Impacts. Direct impacts to biological resources in the East of 101 Area would not vary among three proposed alternatives, so direct impacts associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be the same as those associated with the Directed Growth Alternative. The policies of the Area Plan would be applicable to the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative so no significant impacts would occur. b. Indirect Impacts. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would result in a similar degree of indirect impacts as described for the Directed Growth Alternative, but the sources of impacts would differ. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would include residential development on the Koll site, more planned commercial, and less industrial land use than the Directed Growth Alternative. As such, indirect impacts to wildlife as a result of invasive recreational use and pet predation would be expected to be moderate to relatively high, while disturbances from noise, light glare, and vibration would be slightly lower than those of the Directed Growth Alternative. Policy NR-7 requires the incorporation of design elements and on-site buffers which reduce impacts to sensitive resources. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable to the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. With these policies, no significant impacts would occur from industrial and commercial uses. Indirect impacts from recreational use and pet predation associated with residential uses would require additional mitigation not included in the Area Plan policies. 3. Market Oriented Alternative a. Direct Impacts. Direct impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Market Oriented Alternative would be the same as those associated with the Directed Growth Alternative. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable to the Market Oriented Alternative, so no significant impacts would occur. b. Indirect Impacts. The Market Oriented Alternative would result in a similar degree of indirect impacts as described for the Directed Growth Alternative, but the sources of impacts would differ. The Market Oriented Alternative would include residential development on both the Koll and Shearwater sites, with less planned commercial land use than the other alternatives. As such, indirect impacts to wildlife as a result of invasive recreational use and pet predation may be expected to be relatively high, while VI-171 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES disturbances from noise, light glare, and vibration would be slightly lower than those of the Directed Growth Alternative. Policy NR-7 of the Area Plan requires the incorporation of design elements and on-site buffers which reduce impacts to sensitive resources. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable to the Market Oriented Alternative. With these policies, no significant impacts would occur from industrial and commercial uses. Indirect impacts from recreational use and pet predation associated with residential uses would require additional mitigation not included in the Area Plan policies. 4. No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, sensitive biological resources along the bayshore would still be protected by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission's jurisdiction for Bay Trail access. This area is a 100 foot shoreline band along the San Francisco Bay. In addition, permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game would protect wetland areas which occur within development projects. However, wetland areas that do not fall under these permitting regulations could be lost. If a project were to potentially to disturb or destroy a listed sensitive or endangered species under the No Project Alternative, a federal "incidental take" permit and a State 2081 permit would still be required. Indirect impacts to biological resources would be more likely to occur under the No Project alternative than under the Area Plan because special project design would not necessarily be required of projects which were in the vicinity of sensitive resource areas. VI-172 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES INFRASTRUCTURE K. Infrastructure The proposed Area Plan would have a significant impact on infrastructure if it would: • Exceed existing sewage collection or treatment capacity. • Create demand for water beyond the available supply. • Create a major storm drainage problem or hazard in and around the project area. • Pose major problems in terms of provision of services such as electricity, telephone, and gas. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Water System. The land use categories of the Directed Growth Alternative allow for a variety of development types that would have a wide range of water usage. Based on current water demand forecasts, which provide conservative use estimates and are described in detail in the Area Plan itself; new development under the Directed Growth Alternative is projected to require almost 2.2 million gallons of water per day, or about 2,448 acre-feet per year, as shown in Table 31. The California Water Service Company has adequate water supply to meet this increased water demand. The Company has a total yearly water supply of 47,400 acre-feet for their Peninsula districts, which includes the South San Francisco District, San Carlos, San Mateo and Bear Gultch areas. Their forecast, as described in the Area Plan, results in a surplus of 10,100 acre-feet per year for these areas. The projected increased demand would use approximately 18 percent of the surplus supply in the Peninsula districts expected in 2010. Planned Industrial development uses the most water at 200 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet. Table 31 is based on averages of various land uses allowed in each category. The actual uses in the Planned Industrial land use category could vary significantly. If high amounts of biotech manufacturing projects develop, the total could increase. VI-173 M .r Vf C7 Q W a .~. Q W ~.. wz 0 H d Lr~ [[~ ~A~ w~~ o~,~ ~~z A~ Q a a~ ~ W ~3a A~ W rl U ~,, zo ~ `,~ ~ 'r n h 1/~ ~ n N O "~" ~yy, G C~ r,, ~ .-. ~0 M VMS N ~O 00 w~l b ~ 'R ~ ~ G ~ '. N d $+ ~ L~ ~ A G .-. 8 O ~D 8 ~O 8 O N w 'c ~ m 68 vi :°. ~ ri ~ ~ vi ~ _yy~ .Y 0 .~-~ N W W W .y+ C ~ ~ N ~ fppJ .-. ~ vi ~ R ~ ~ M ~ p~y, ~D ~ 00 ~ '"~ N Y ~ ~ 1d ,+ yy D R ~Mp N pp N [~ H O N ~~ Y ~ L V ~ a W 9 4 o i oho g 52 25 a ' ~. y ~ .~+, 0~ .- N ~ ~ v j N v1 eNe{{ N r .r j W ~ W ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~+ ,.R ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~p V 8 N 8 A.. ~ ~ b .-i N ~ ~ ..a ..T 7 .0 D 00 R ,.., ~ ..i r - ~ b~ ~ ~ ~ T 'a ~~ a Q 25 c b Q 25 O 0 ~ C ~ u ~ b O d N A ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ , ~ g G ~ ~rj i i r ~O V ~O vi h .--~ N ~O M eq .r ~ .: ~ ~ h ~ ~~e .+ ~ .-i ~' ~ ^ W ~' O ~ W ~ ~ W N w N ~ N •C H a ~ a ,., .. , ~ .. ~ ~+ C ~ N .~ G N ~ .~ U 'v .~ ~ a ~ ~ 'o F A~ l 5 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES INFRASTRUCTURE Area Plan Policy PF-1 requires the replacement of the 12-inch water main between the San Francisco water system in Brisbane through the Shearwater site to Oyster Point Boulevard. The new 16-inch main would serve the demands required by the Directed Growth Alternative. Water conservation is important in the Bay Area, which is subject to drought. Area Plan Policy PF-2, which requires low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping, will limit impacts on water use. As per regular City and CWSC policy, each new development application will be reviewed individually by the Fire Department to determine fire hydrant locations and any unusual fire flow requirements. Based on Fire Department input, the California Water Service Company will review its system to confirm water flow. Where on-site fire hydrants are required, these hydrants and connecting water lines can be either privately owned and maintained or be owned and maintained by the CWSC. However, where opportunities exist to cross connect or to provide loops in the water system, the CWSC may require ownership of these on-site lines. With the implementation of the policies of the Area Plan, no significant impacts related to water supply and the water system are anticipated. b. Sanitary Sewer. Potential impacts on sanitary sewer provision may be divided into impacts on sewage collection capacity and sewage treatment capacity. (1) Sewage Collection. Since sewer lines in the East of 101 Area were built to serve industrial development, they are generally sufficient to accommodate development that would occur under the Directed Growth Alternative. Only a few improvements to the sewage collection system appear to be needed, and these are required under Policy PF-3 of the Area Plan. The most significant sewer reconstruction will occur on Harbor Way, where 1,400 linear feet of sewer line will be replaced between East Grand Avenue and East Harris Avenue. This project is currently planned for fiscal years 1996-1998. However, if significant development occurs in the area before that time, reconstruction may be needed sooner. Policy PF-3 of the Area Plan requires that reconstruction of the main occur prior to development which might impact the system. Pump Station Number 4 is to be upgraded to improve the reliability and backup to the sewer system before significant increases in flow occur at this station. The project is an improvement which is planned for inclusion in the VI-175 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES INFRASTRUCTURE Capital Improvements Program of fiscal years 1996-1998, and is stipulated in Policy PF-3. No other sewage collection improvements appear to be necessary to serve development under this alternative, so no significant impact would occur. (2) Sewage Treatment. The new wastewater treatment plant demand created by the Directed Growth Alternative is outlined in Table 32. The Directed Growth Alternative would have the lowest sewage demand of any of the three alternatives at 1.74 million gallons daily. The new demands shown in Table 32 are based on averages of the various land uses allowed in each category. The actual uses in the Planned Industrial land use category could vary significantly. Industrial uses generally cause the most significant impacts to the sewage treatment capacity due to high peak loadings during the day. An accurate indication of the wastewater treatment plant's capacity is not available at this time, but it could be lower than the plant's original theoretical design capacity of 13 million gallons per day. As reflected in Policy PF-5, the City is to complete plant capacity tests during fiscal year 1993-94. Once capacity is established, the City is to develop a schedule and funding program for needed improvements under Policy PF-6. If Plan policies are implemented and necessary plant capacity expansions occur, then there would be no significant impact on wastewater treatment capacity. c. Storm Drainage. Because the Directed Growth Alternative, and the other alternatives, would allow for increased development in the East of 101 Area, they would all increase run-off to the storm drainage system. The volume of runoff is based on three variables: 1) the runoff coefficient for the particular land use, 2) the average annual rainfall, and 3) the surface area. The three variables are multiplied together to estimate the average annual runoff. The average runoff was estimated for each land use type. The runoff factor is based on the type of land use and is related to how impervious the site is. Sites that are relatively impervious (i.e., paved parking areas) have higher runoff coefficients and so have larger volumes of runoff. Areas with low runoff coefficients, such as open space, tend to have greater amounts of percolation and smaller volumes of runoff. Table 33 summarizes the runoff coefficients used for this water quality analysis. The average annual VI-176 fL' W W W ~„Q~~,' ~w+ ] y w z ~ ~o~ F o~z w H O ~ ca w Q a t~ Q O w ~ a~ C/1 Q ~ -.' F A Q W "' ~ o w O z~ .mr N ~ H ~ a O G O G .~ 8 ec w E /- 8 .. ~ a z c °' o s w ' ~ " ~ " y ~ ,`~ ' E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V 5Q ~ S S ~ 25 5 ~ 25 g QQ S $ m ~ g ~ ri ~ r~ ~ G ~ "" ~ ~ N o ~ a ~ o v ~ ~ ~ ~ o o c c .; •~ a cv H . E G E ~ ~ z E s" ~ w ~ ~ y ~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 $8 o G W _ ~ N l~ ~ ~ r: N ti a._ ~ N ~ a+ O ~D "" N O .ti a ~ o ~ e o 0 o r. '' c m - p 8 A 'e e _ _a z ,,. V w w ~ ' ~. ~ N' N" y ~ ~ ~ g O g O g O g O _ Q a (:~ N N O try ~O to N c~ V ; "" ~p fh ~:. w w ~C G^ O' O' ~ M ~ V ti ~ .-r ~ '--' \ \ \ ~ N ~ p ~O .~ is .y -'7 .fl iv ? iV _~ N r.~ 'C y C ~ W O U OQ ~ R '~ a ~ y a a + F W z 0 H Q F w ~a zca 6 ~ Q ~z U F a =~w gV W M U :: w ~o Hz a F W ~ i" W [~ ~ eF ~ N 00 ~ppOpp 00 a0 O ~ ~. , O ~ h b .. . M ~ . m e o a ~ ~ :° d .. a a ~ 'E a _ v ~ r. ~O r. 0 ~ ~ y ~ ; ~ ~ 0 D y± ri Y t . L' 00 t~ N ~O cn ~t ca > p a ~ N ~p .~ .-i dW a' ~~ ~a ~ C ~ M N ~ ~--~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ Q N ~ O N ~D O , .-. ~--~ ~ W .~ ~..~ O O N 00 b ~ ~ M x O~ N N r ~--~ .--~ n ~ • ~ V V W '~ v A ~ e ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 h ti p ~ a ~ ~--~ O r+ .--~ of ~ ti 0+ u 'a m v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y t~ M !+! ti w ~ C 0~0 ~ r r 000 ~O W r N ~` d o v G C C G C O G C C a~ R ~ v _ ~ r ~ E ~ [C ~ °' 7 ~~ ~ ~ QQ • -~ ~ C a ~ N N rC V ~ Q~ ~c'.~ rO C h C ~ C fC ~ ~ C LC .W+ a :a w U ¢ fX U U 0 0 Ey C L Q~ C .~ Ci W a, r yio c 1.-y 00 r 5 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES INFRASTRUCTURE rainfall used was 18 inches per years and was the same for all the land uses within the project. The surface area for each land use varies depending on the alternative. The estimated annual runoff volume of the Directed Growth Alternative and the other two alternatives is shown in Table 33. The estimated volumes vary by 5 percent or less, and for this level of study can be considered to be virtually equal. The existing drainage in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Therefore, the indicated runoff from new development would be able to be accommodated in the existing drainage system. The Area Plan provides for the specific evaluation of development proposals to determine drainage requirements. Properties which are of specific concern are the Shearwater site and areas that drain into Colma Creek. Drainage concerns on these properties are due to their low elevations and location in the 100-year flood plain. Development on these sites is likely to require filling to raise the properties to an elevation over the flood plain. These concerns are mitigated by Policy PF-8 of the Area Plan. The higher the percentage landscaped area in a specific site plan, the less the impact on drainage. The planned land uses, which include offices with parking structures and campus-type planned industrial development, have the potential for relatively large landscaped areas, and thus a minimal impact on drainage. d. Utilities. The Planned Industrial land use category has the potential for the most significant impacts for new gas and electric facilities. This potential impact is due to the possibility of biotech manufacturing or other industrial land uses that are heavy gas or electric users. However, these requirements are expected to fall within the capabilities of the utility companies and no significant impacts are anticipated. 1 BART -San Francisco Airport Extension, Draft EIR, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, March 1992. VI-179 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES INFRASTRUCTURE 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Water System. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would have the same impacts on the water system as the Directed Growth Alternative. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would use approximately 1,300 acre-feet of water per year, as shown in Table 31. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable to the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, so no significant impacts are anticipated. b. Sanitary Sewer. (1) Sewage Collection. The impacts on the sanitary sewer mains and pump station would be the same for the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative as for the Directed Growth Alternative and would not be significant. (2) Sewage Treatment. The total new demand for wastewater treatment under this alternative would vary significantly from that for the Directed Growth Alternative, as shown on Table 32. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would have less demand, at 1.43 million gallons daily, than the Directed Growth Alternative, and would also be significantly less than the Market Oriented Alternative's demands. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable to the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, therefore, implementation of the alternative is not expected to cause any significant impacts. c. Storm Drainaee. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be expected to have the same impacts on storm drainage as the Directed Growth Alternative, because the amount of impervious surface and run-off would not vary significantly among the alternatives. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable to the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, so no signiiicant impacts are anticipated. d. Utilities. The Planned Industrial land use category has the potential for the most significant impacts for new gas and electric facilities. This potential impact is due to the possibility of biotech manufacturing or other industrial land uses that are heavy gas or electric users. Since this alternative would have the smallest amount of Planned Industrial use of any of the three alternatives, its need for significant gas and electric facilities would be the lowest. However, these requirements are expected to fall within the capabilities of the utility companies and no significant impacts are anticipated. VI-180 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES INFRASTRUCTURE 3. Market Oriented Alternative a. Water System. As shown in Table 31, the Market Oriented Alternative Plan would use a larger amount of water than the Directed Growth or Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternatives. This alternative would need about 2,207 more acre-feet of water than CWSC projects, which is approximately 18 percent of the projected 10,100 acre feet surplus for 2010. This increase in usage still falls within the expected surplus and this impact would not be considered significant. b. Sanitary Sewer. The impacts on the sanitary sewer mains and pump station would be the same for the Market Oriented Alternative as for the Directed Growth Alternative, and would not be significant. The total new demand for wastewater treatment under this alternative would vary only slightly from that for the Directed Growth Alternative, as shown on Table 32. The Market Oriented Alternative would create the most demand out of all three alternatives at 1.84 million gallons daily. However, even with these additional demands, improvements shown for the Directed Growth Alternative would provide enough treatment capacity. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable to the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, therefore, implementation of the alternative is not expected to cause any significant impacts, although it might require additional increases in sewage plant capacity over those foreseen in the Area plan for the Directed Growth Alternative. c. Storm Drainage. The Market Oriented Alternative would be expected to have the same impacts on storm drainage as the Directed Growth Alternative because the amount of impervious surface and run-off would not vary significantly among the alternatives. The policies of the Area Plan would still be applicable to the Market Oriented Alternative, so no significant impacts are anticipated. d. Utilities. The Planned Industrial land use category has the potential for the most significant impacts for new gas and electric facilities. This potential impact is due to the possibility of biotech manufacturing or other industrial land uses that are heavy gas or electric users. Therefore, the Market Oriented Alternative with 5,434,000 square feet of potential new Planned Industrial land uses, has the highest potential impact on the need for new gas and electric facilities. However, these requirements fall within the capabilities of the utility companies and no significant impacts are anticipated. VI-181 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES INFRASTRUCTURE 4. No Project Alternative Many of the recommended infrastructure improvements of the Area Plan are tentatively included in the Capital Improvement Programs over the next five years. Under the No Project Alternative, however, many of these improvements may not be complected prior to new development in the East of 101 Area since there would be no financing program or improvement policies in place. Improvements which will have to be completed in the area prior to any significant development to prevent potential impacts include the reconstruction of the 21-inch sanitary sewer main around Harbor Way and East Harris Avenue, improvements to Pump Station Number 4, rehabilitation of Aeration Tank Number 7, construction of additional treatment plant capacity, and replacement of the 12-inch water distribution system main from the San Francisco Water Department pipeline to Oyster Point Boulevard. Sewer treatment plant capacity has the potential to constrain development without implementation of the improvements foreseen under the Area Plan. A final clarifier may need to be added to the plant to increase the current capacity. Without the addition of this clarifier, the development of the East of 101 Area under the No Project Alternative, coupled with other development which relies on the plant, may significantly exceed sewage treatment capacities. VI-182 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES L. Municipal and Retail Services This section reviews the Plan's potential impacts to municipal and retial services in the East of 101 Area. The services that have been reviewed are: • Fire Protection • Police Protection • Schools and Child Care • Libraries • Retail Services • Street, Infrastructure and Landscape Maintenance The costs of providing these services are discussed in the fiscal analysis in Section IV of the Project Binder. Infrastructure impacts and mitigation, including water supply, sanitary sewer, hydrology and storm drainage, communications, and gas and electric services, are discussed in the previous section. The Plan would have a significant municipal and retail services impact if it would: • Create a substantial shortage of school or child care facilities. • Require additional staff or equipment to maintain acceptable levels of police or fire protection services. • Require additional staff or equipment for the maintenance of streets, infrastructure, and landscaping in the East of 101 Area. • Result in unsafe conditions in or around the East of 101 Area. • Create a shortage of retail services in the East of 101 Area. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Emergency Medical Services and Fire Protection. The South San Francisco Fire Department has stated that additional commercial and industrial VI-183 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES development in the East of 101 Area would generally not require significant additional services. The only exception would be increases in hotel uses, which would establish new 24-hour demands for emergency and fire services. Currently, the Fire Department provides emergency services using one ambulance and crew. The Fire Department estimates that the capacity of this unit is approximately 2,250 calls per year. According to the Fire Marshall, the Department currently receives about 2,550 calls for emergency services annually, as a result approximately 300 calls are currently referred to private ambulance services. The City has determined that the appropriate threshold for provision of a new ambulance is the point at which projected ambulance fee revenues would generate 25 percent of the estimated operating costs for the new ambulance. based on the proposed revisions to the fee schedule and current collection rates, the City determined that 758 additional calls for emergency services would generate the required threshold of ambulance fee revenues. Thus, any East of 101 development alternative generating over 458 new calls, in addition to the current excess of 300 calls, would result in the need for an additional ambulance and the required personnel. The projected impact of new developments on emergency services operations was estimated for the Directed Growth Alternative based on emergency calls for service data provided by the Department. The Fire Department estimates that 42 calls for emergency medical service are generated by every 1,000 residents and 8 calls for emergency medical service are generated by every 1,000 employees. Based on these data, the Directed Growth Alternative is not projected to generate sufficient calls to support the need for a new ambulance. Therefore, no impacts for emergency services are identified for the Directed Growth Alternatives. Impact MUNI-D1: Development under the Directed Growth Alternative would decrease the service provisions of the Fire Department to unacceptable levels unless additional service provisions are made. The Fire Department also analyzed the Directed Growth Alternative to determine increased fire protection costs. It was determined that no new fire stations would be required to support the new development, however, three additional firefighters would be required to augment the existing personnel. Each fire fighter would cost $63,335 per year in 1993 dollars, including salary and benefits. The Fire Department estimates the need for these new firefighters beginning year 1995 for each development alternative. In addition, the City will need a new fire ladder truck. VI-184 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES Mitigation Measure MUNI-D1: The City shall hire three new firefighters and purchase a fire ladder truck as additional development dictates and as determined by the City Fire Department. The department has additional concerns about development on the Koll property at Sierra Point. Because of insufficient access, response times to and from Siena Point can range from 5 to 13 minutes. These response times can exceed acceptable limits for serious calls by two to three times. If development were to occur on the Koll site without significant access improvements, the departments' ability to provide required service would be minimal. Mitigation for this potential impact is given in Policy CIR-5, which requires construction of new access to the Koll site before development occurs on it. b. Police Protection. The City of South San Francisco's Police Department provides primary law enforcement the East of 101 Area. In 1992, the South San Francisco Police Department received 32,710 calls for service. There are 115 personnel including 75 sworn officers in the South San Francisco Police Department. The current service ratio is 1.38 officers per 1,000 residents. The department's minimum service standard is 1.35 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. The Directed Growth Alternative was examined by Sergeant Ron Petrocchi, Crime Prevention/Planning for the South San Francisco Police Department. Using calls for service generated by existing projects for each land use, cost estimates were made taking into account personnel, equipment and training to provide service for the Directed Growth Alternative. Impact MUNI-D2: Development under the Directed Growth Alternative would decrease the service abilities of the Police Department to unacceptable levels unless additional service provisions are made. Using data on response activity, the Police Department determined the quantity of each commercial land use which could be serviced by the addition of each new sworn officer. On top of these standards for provision of new sworn officers in response to new commercial development, the City maintains a minimum service standard of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residents. The quantity of new officers generated in response to new commercial development is cross-checked to insure that the overall ratio of officers/residents is also maintained. In addition to personnel costs, a standard police vehicles requirement is one vehicle per 2.7 new officers. The total cost of Police Department VI-185 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES AUGUST 1993 improvements required by the Directed Growth Alternative at buildout equals $975,000. These costs are included in the fiscal analysis of Section IV. Mitigation Measure MUNI-D2: The City shall maintain a minimum service standard of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residents, with additional personnel as needed to serve commercial and industrial development, and shall maintain police vehicles at a ratio of one vehicle per 2.7 officers to accommodate development under the Area Plan. c. Schools and Child Care. With no residential land uses proposed as part of the Directed Growth Alternative, schools would not be .impacted by future development. Child care needs, however, are associated more directly with employment. Therefore, child care facilities are to be encouraged as part of any major office or industrial park development, as reflected in Policy LU-24, which encourages child care facilities by not counting them as part of a project's allowed Floor Area Ratio. In addition, child care facilities are provided by the City of South San Francisco. However, these facilities are self supporting and the addition of such facilities in the East of 101 Area would not result in a fiscal impact. d. Libraries. With no residential land uses proposed as part of the Directed Growth Alternative, libraries would not be impacted by future development. e. Retail~Services. Currently, there is a shortfall of retail services to serve employees in the East of 101 Area. Under the Area Plan, retail services would be allowed under all land use categories. In addition, Policy LU-22 encourages construction of supporting retail services in Planned and Light Industrial areas by not counting retail space as part of the allowed Floor Area Ratio in an area. This policy will help to correct the existing problem in the East of 101 Area, so no significant impact would occur. f. Parks and Landscape Maintenance. Operation and maintenance of South San Francisco's public parks and recreation services are performed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department. The City of South San Francisco requires that developers of new residential projects mitigate the impact of their developments through either dedication of new park lands or payment of park in-lieu fees. It is assumed that the majority of developers in the East of 101 Area will pay in-lieu fees rather than dedicate park land. The in-lieu fees collected will be used to develop recreation areas along the waterfront. Any increased park maintenance costs for the waterfront VI-186 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES recreation areas will be covered by a lighting and landscaping assessment district. With these provisions, no significant impacts are anticipated. g. Infrastructure Maintenance. Impact MUNI-D3: Development under the Directed Growth Alternative would impact the Engineering Department's ability to provide adequate infrastructure maintenance unless additional service provisions are made. New development in the East of 101 Area will generate considerable increases in traffic volumes, which in turn generates a need for increased roadway and traffic infrastructure maintenance. The costs associates with these increased costs were derived based on a methodology developed by the City's Department of Engineering. This methodology first allocates a portion of the City's current roadway and traffic infrastructure maintenance budget to the East of 101 Area based on the proportion of the total City land area which lies east of Highway 101. Future increases in maintenance costs attributable to area development were estimated by increasing the base East of 101 Area maintenance costs by a factor equal to the percentage increase in area traffic volumes generated by the new development. According to the City's most recent budget, the total cost for current roadway and traffic infrastructure maintenance costs was $1,432,525 citywide. The area was determined to represent approximately 30 percent of the South San Francisco land area; thus it was calculated that the proportionate share of the current cost attributable to the East of 101 Area was $429,758. Additional costs to maintain the roadways and infrastructure in the East of 101 Area were calculated based on increased traffic projections associated with each alternative. These traffic projections were determined by multiplying the quantities of new development by Institute of Traffic Engineers (IT'E) trip generation factors deemed appropriate for each land use type. The percentage increase in traffic volumes was then applied to the current roadways and traffic infrastructure maintenance budget for the East of 101 Area to estimate the annual cost increases that would be associated with new development in the area. The roadway and traffic infrastructure maintenance costs generated by the Directed Growth Alternative at buildout are equal to $843,338. Mitigation Measure MUNI-D3: The City shall hire the required employees and purchase needed equipment to maintain infrastructure in the East of 101 Area. VI-187 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Emereency Medical Services and Fire Protection. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative allows for the development of 1,100 new residential units. The Fire Department of the City of South San Francisco has identified a need for additional employees with the development of residential uses. In addition, hotel uses would create an additional increased 24-hour demand for emergency and medical services. Similar to the Directed Growth Alternative, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative is not projected to generate sufficient calls to support the need for a new ambulance. Calls which cannot be handled through the Fire Department will be referred to private ambulance services, as they are today. Therefore, no impacts for emergency services are identified for the Planned Commercial Emphasis alternative. Impact MUNI-Pl: Development under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would decrease the service provisions of the Fire Department to unacceptable levels. The Fire Department also analyzed the Directed Growth Alternative to determine increased fire protection costs. It was determined that no new fire stations would be required to support the new development, however, three additional firefighters would be required to augment the existing personnel at the 249 Harbor Way station. Each fire fighter would cost $63,335 per year in 1993 dollars, including salary and benefits. The Fire Department estimates the need for these new firelighters beginning year 1995. In addition, the City shall need a new fire ladder truck. Mitigation Measure MUNI-P1: The City shall hire three new firefighters and purchase a fire ladder truck as additional development dictates and as determined by the City Fire Department. The department has additional concerns about development on the Koll property at Sierra Point. Because of insufficient access, response times to and from Sierra Point can range from 5 to 13 minutes. These response times can exceed acceptable limits for serious calls by two to three times. If development were to occur on the Koll site without significant access improvements, the departments' ability to provide required service would be minimal. Mitigation for this potential impact is given in Policy CIR-5, which requires construction of new access to the Koll site before development occurs on it. VI-188 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES b. Police Protection. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative was examined by the Police Department. Using calls for service generated by existing projects for each land use and standard generation rates for new residents, cost estimates were made taking into account personnel, equipment and training to provide service for the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. Impact MUNI-P2: Development under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would decrease the service provisions of the Police Department to unacceptable levels. Using data on response activity, the Police Department determined the quantity of each commercial land use which could be serviced by the addition of each new sworn officer. On top of these standards for provision of new sworn officers in response to new commercial development, the City maintains a minimum service standard of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residents. The quantity of new officers generated in response to new commercial development is cross-checked to insure that the overall ratio of officers/residents is also maintained. In addition to personnel costs, a standard police vehicles requirement is one vehicle per 2.7 new officers. The total cost of Police Department improvements required by the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative at buildout equals $1.,061,000 in 1993 dollars. Mitigation Measure MUNI-P2: The City shall maintain a minimum service standard of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residents, and shall maintain police vehicles at a ratio of one vehicle per 2.7 officers to accommodate development under the Area Plan. c. Schools. Schools could be impacted by the addition of residents to the East of 101 Area. Though enrollment is generally projected to decrease throughout South San Francisco, additional residential units would bring more school age children to the area. Impact MUNI-P3: Development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would generate approximately 157 elementary school students, 73 middle school students, and 97 high school students at buildout. The existing educational facilities and transportation systems are not adequate to serve this influx of students. VI-189 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES Table 34 summarizes pupil generation projections, which are based on the development of 1,100 residential units with an average household size of 1.7 at buildout for the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative.l The South San Francisco Unified School District does not have data for pupil generation for multi-family units, so the generation shown in Table 34 is approximate only. Thus the projected generation figures give an indication of probable impacts, but should not be taken as definitive. As reflected by the mitigation measure below, proposed residential development would be required to provide a more detailed demographic study of student generation for the specific project in cooperation with the South San Francisco Unified School District. Based on the data in Table 34, it appears that local schools that would serve the new residences would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected new students. Martin Elementary School is currently at capacity. Parkway Heights Junior High School has some available capacity, but could not handle 73 new students. South San Francisco High School also has insufficient capacity to accommodate 97 new students. Improvements and expansions would have to be made at all schools before residential development was occupied. The numbers of new students generated could require a new elementary school due to locational and capacity constraints, but the School District cannot financially operate a school with less than 400 students. Thus, it would be necessary to accommodate new students at all levels with new facilities or non- traditional organization of students, such as grouping both elementary and middle school students at one school, or by expanding existing campuses. School impact fees for new construction are currently limited by State law to $2.65 per square foot. Assuming unit sizes of about 1,200 per unit, the 1,100 units on the Koll site would generate a maximum of $3,498,000 in school facility fees. Based on experiences in other Northern California communities, average per student capital costs for new facilities are assumed to equal approximately $11,700. Thus new students generated on the Koll site would generate a total cost of $3,826,000. This would create a shortfall of $328,000, so an unavoidable significant impact would occur on school facilities. 1 Student generation rates are based on the 1990 population of 54,312 for the City of South San Francisco and student enrollment for that year. Elementary children are assumed to be 8.4 percent of the population, middle school children are assumed to be 3.9 percent of the population, and high school students are assumed to be 5.2 percent of the population. VI-190 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES Table 34 APPROXIMATE STUDENT GENERATION Directed Growth Planned Commercial Market Oriented Residential Units 0 1,100 3,388 Average Household Size 1.7 1.7 1.7 New Residents 0 3,200 9,860 New Elementary School Students (8.4 percent of the population) 0 157 484 New Middle School Students (3.9 percent of the population) 0 73 225 New High School Students (5.2 percent of the population) 0 97 300 In addition, these figures do not include funding of transportation facilities. Assuming that new development were proposed to be served by school facilities on the west side of Highway 101, transportation would have to be provided. However, busing of school children cannot be provided by the School District or the City using current equipment. SamTrans currently cooperates with the South San Francisco School District for busing children within the rest of the City, so continued busing of children on public transit may have to occur.2 As stated above, this alternative would have an unavoidable significant impact on school facilities. To aid in better planning for schools, the following measure should be implemented, but it would not reduce the impact to less- than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure MUNI-P3: Proposed residential development in the East of 101 Area should be required to cooperate in the development and provide financing for a detailed demographic study to determine exactly how many students would be generated by the development. ` Personal communication, Janice Smith, Assistant Superintendent, South San Francisco Unified School District, July 25, 1993 VI-191 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES d. Child Care. Child care facilities would also be in greater demand due to a more localized residential population coupled with a strong employment base. Child care facilities are to be encouraged as part of any major office or industrial park development, as reflected in Policy LU-24 of the Area Plan, which encourages child care facilities by not counting them as part of a project's allowed Floor Area Ratio. In addition, child care facilities are provided by the City of South San Francisco. However, these facilities are self supporting and the addition of such facilities in the East of 101 Area would not result in a fiscal impact. e. Libraries. South San Francisco is currently served by two libraries with a total of 150,000 books. The closest library to proposed residential development in the East of 101 Area, is the Grand Avenue library branch, located in the Civic Center at 306 Walnut Avenue. This library is approximately 11,000 square feet in size with 50,000 books (4.6 books per square feet). The larger library in South San Francisco is the West Orange Library, located at 840 West Orange with 24,900 square feet and 100,000 books (4.0 books per square foot). Impact MUNI-P4: Development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would decrease the service provisions of the libraries of South San Francisco. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative was analyzed with regard to its impact on the public libraries by Ms. Billie Dancy, Library Director of the South San Francisco Public Library. Cost estimates for increases in library service were projected based on residential population growth for each alternative. Using current circulation and personnel costs, an average cost was calculated at $8 per resident. Increased costs to provide library services to the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be approximately $16,000 in 1993 dollars at buildout. Mitigation Measure MUNI-P4: The City shall provide the library improvements required to implement the Area Plan. These improvements include circulation and personnel improvements and cost approximately $8 per new resident in 1993 dollars. f. Retail Services. Currently, there is a shortfall of retail services to serve employees in the East of 101 Area. Under the Area Plan, retail services would be allowed under all land use categories. In addition, Policy LU-22 encourages construction of supporting retail and personal services in Planned and Light Industrial areas by not counting retail space as part of the allowed Floor Area VI-192 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES Ratio in an area. This policy will help to correct the existing problem in the East of 101 Area, so no significant impact would occur. g. Parks and Landscape Maintenance. Operation and maintenance of South San Francisco's public parks and recreation services are performed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department. The City of South San Francisco requires that developers of new residential projects mitigate the impact of their developments through either dedication of new park lands or payment of park in-lieu fees. It is assumed that the majority of developers in the East of 101 Area will pay in-lieu fees rather than dedicate park land. The in-lieu fees collected will be used to develop recreation areas along the waterfront. Any increased park maintenance costs for the waterfront recreation areas will be covered by a lighting and landscaping assessment district. With these provisions, no significant impacts are expected. h. Infrastructure Maintenance. Impact MUNI-P5: Development under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would impact the Engineering Department's ability to provide adequate infrastructure maintenance. New development in the East of 101 Area will generate considerable increases in traffic volumes, which in turn generates a need for increased roadway and traffic infrastructure maintenance. The costs associates with these increased costs were derived based on a methodology developed by the City's Department of Engineering. Additional costs to maintain the roadways and infrastructure in the East of 101 Area were calculated based on increased traffic projections associated with each alternative. These traffic projections were determined by multiplying the quantities of new development by Institute of Traffic Engineers (l'TE) trip generation factors deemed appropriate for each land use type. The percentage increase in traffic volumes was then applied to the current roadways and traffic infrastructure maintenance budget for the area to estimate the annual cost increases that would be associated with new development in the area. The roadway and traffic infrastructure maintenance costs generated by the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative at buildout are expected to equal $793,000 in 1993 dollars. VI-193 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES Mitigation Measure MUNI-P5: The City should hire the required employees and purchased needed equipment to maintain infrastructure in the East of 101 Area. 3. Market Oriented Alternative a. Emergency Medical Services and Fire Protection. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative allows for the development of 3,388 new residential units. The Fire Department of the City of South San Francisco has identified a need for additional employees with the development of residential uses. In addition, hotel uses would create an additional increased 24-hour demand for emergency and medical services. Similar to the Directed Growth Alternative, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative is not projected to generate sufficient calls to support the need for a new ambulance. Calls which cannot be handled through the Fire Department will be referred to private ambulance services, as they are today. Therefore, no impacts for emergency services are identified for the Planned Commercial Emphasis alternative. Impact MUNI-Ml: Development under the Market Oriented Alternative would decrease the service provisions of the Fire Department to unacceptable levels. The Fire Department also analyzed the Directed Growth Alternative to determine increased fire protection costs. It was determined that no new fire stations would be required to support the new development, however, three additional firefighters would be required to augment the existing personnel at the 249 Harbor Way station. Each fire fighter would cost $63,335 per year in 1993 dollars, including salary and benefits. The Fire Department estimates the need for these new firefighters beginning year 1995. In addition, the City will need a new fire ladder .truck. Mitigation Measure MUNI-Ml: The City shall hire three new firefighters and purchase a fire ladder truck as additional development dictates and as determined by the City Fire Department. The department has additional concerns about development on the Koll property at Sierra Point. Because of insufficient access, response times to and from Sierra Point can range from 5 to 13 minutes. These response times can exceed acceptable limits for serious calls by two to three times. If development were to occur on the Koll site without significant access improvements, the departments' ability to provide required service would be minimal. Mitigation VI-194 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES for this potential impact is given in Policy CIR-5, which requires construction of new access to the Koll site before development occurs on it. b. Police Protection. Using calls for service generated by existing projects for each land use and standard generation rates for new residents, cost estimates were made taking into account personnel, equipment and training to provide service for the Market Oriented Alternative. Impact MUNI-M2: Development under the Market Oriented Alternative would decrease the service provisions of the Police Department to unacceptable levels. Using data on response activity, the Police Department determined the quantity of each commercial land use which could be serviced by the addition of each new sworn officer. On top of these standards for provision of new sworn officers in response to new commercial development, the City maintains a minimum service standard of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residents. The quantity of new officers generated in response to new commercial development is cross-checked to insure that the overall ratio of officers/residents is also maintained. In addition to personnel costs, a standard police vehicles requirement is one vehicle per 2.7 new officers. The total costs of Police Department improvements required by the Market Oriented Alternative at buildout equals $796,000 in 1993 dollars. Mitigation Measure MUNI-M2: The City shall maintain a minimum service standard of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residents, with additional personnel as needed to serve commercial and industrial development, and shall maintain police vehicles at a ratio of one vehicle per 2.7 officers to accommodate development under the Area Plan. c. Schools. In addition, schools could be impacted by the addition of residents to the East of 101 Area. Though enrollment is generally projected to decrease throughout South San Francisco, additional residential units would bring more school age children to the area. Impact MUNI-M3: Development of the Market Oriented Alternative will create additional school age children of approximately 484 elementary school students, 225 middle school students, and 300 high school students at buildout. The existing educational facilities are not adequate to serve this influx of students. VI-195 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES These projections were based on the development of 3,388 residential units with an average household size of 1.7 at buildout for the Market Oriented Alternative. Average student generation rates of 1990 were also used for this alternative. Table 34 summarizes the projected residential development under the Market Oriented Alternative and subsequent student generation. These rough projections are not meant to be used as a basis for residential development in the East of 101 Area. They are to be used as guidelines in the planning stages for the area. As reflected by the mitigation measure below, proposed residential development shall be required to provide a more detailed demographic study of student generation for the specific project in cooperation with the South San Francisco Unified School District. Based on the data in Table 34, it appears that local schools would not have significant capacity to accommodate the projected new students. Martin Elementary School is currently at capacity, and Parkway Heights Junior High School and the South San Francisco High School could not handle the additional influx of students. Development of the residential component of the Market Oriented Alternative would require a new elementary and middle school, and possibly a new high school. It should also be noted that the School District cannot financially operate a school with less than 400 students. It might be possible to use non-traditional organization of students, for example, grouping both middle school and high school students at one school. This solution, however, still might be difficult to operate financially. School impact fees for new construction are currently limited by State law to $2.65 per square foot. Assuming unit sizes of about 1,200 per unit, the 3,388 units on the Koll and Shearwater sites would generate a maximum of $10,774,000 in school facility fees. Based on experience in other Northern California communities, average per student capital costs for new facilities are assumed to equal approximately $11,700. Thus new students generated on the Koll site would generate a total cost of $11,805,000. This would create a shortfall of $1,031,000, so an unavoidable significant impact would occur on school facilities. These costs would not include the needed transportation facilities. The South San Francisco currently owns no land appropriate for development of school facilities in the East of 101 Area. In addition, busing of school children cannot be provided by the School District or the City with current facilities. If development were proposed to be served by facilities on the west side of Highway 101, transportation would have to be provided. SamTrans currently cooperates with the South- San Francisco School District for busing children within the remainder of the City. VI-196 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES As stated above, this alternative would have an unavoidable significant impact on school facilities. To aid in better planning for schools, the following measure should be implemented, but it would not reduce the impact to less- than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure MUNI-M3: Proposed residential development for the East of 101 Area should be required to cooperate in the development and providing financing for a detailed demographic study to determine more exactly how many students will be generated by the development. d. Child Care. Child care facilities would also be in greater demand due to a more localized residential population coupled with a strong employment base. Child care facilities should be encouraged as part of any major office or industrial park development, as reflected in Policy LU-24, which would still be required as part of the Market Oriented Alternative. With this policy, no significant impacts are anticipated. In addition, child care facilities are provided by the City of South San Francisco. However, these facilities are self supporting and the addition of such facilities in the East of 101 Area would not result in a fiscal impact. e. Libraries. South San Francisco is currently served by two libraries with a total of 150,000 books. The closest library to proposed residential development in the East of 101 Area, is the Grand Avenue library branch, located in the Civic Center at 306 Walnut Avenue. This library is approximately 11,000 square feet in size with 50,000 books (4.6 books per square feet). The larger library in South San Francisco is the West Orange Library, located at 840 West Orange with 24,900 square feet and 100,000 books (4.0 books per square foot). Impact MUNI-M4: Development of the Market Oriented Alternative would decrease the service provisions of the libraries in South San Francisco. The Market Oriented Alternative was analyzed with regard to its impact on the public libraries by the South San Francisco Public Library. Cost estimates for increases in library service were projected based on residential population growth for each alternative. Using current circulation and personnel costs, an average cost was calculated at $8 per resident. Increased costs to provide library services to the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be approximately $43,000 in 1993 dollars at buildout. VI-197 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES Mitigation Measure MUNI-M4: The City shall provide the library improvements required to implement the Area Plan. These improvements include circulation and personnel improvements and cost approximately $8 per new resident in 1993 dollars. f. Retail Services. Currently, there is a shortfall of retail services to serve employees in the East of 101 Area. Under the Area Plan, retail services would be allowed under all land use categories. In addition, Policy LU-22 encourages construction of supporting retail outlets in Planned and Light Industrial areas by not counting retail space as part of the allowed Floor Area Ratio in an area. This policy will help to correct the existing problem in the East of 101 Area, so no significant impact would occur. g. Parks and Landscape Maintenance. Operation and maintenance of South San Francisco's public parks and recreation services are performed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department. The City of South San Francisco requires that developers of new residential projects mitigate the impact of their developments through either dedication of new park lands or payment of park in-lieu fees. It is assumed that the majority of developers in the East of 101 Area will pay in-lieu fees rather than dedicate park land. The in-lieu fees collected will be used to develop recreation areas along the waterfront. Any increased park maintenance costs for the waterfront recreation areas will be covered by a lighting and landscaping assessment district. With these provisions, no significant impacts are expected. h. Infrastructure Maintenance. Impact MUNI-M5: Development under the Market Oriented Alternative would impact the Engineering Department's ability to provide adequate infrastructure maintenance. New development in the East of 101 Area will generate considerable increases in traffic volumes, which in turn generates a need for increased roadway and traffic infrastructure maintenance. The costs associates with these increased costs were derived based on a methodology developed by the City's Department of Engineering. Additional costs to maintain the roadways and infrastructure in the East of 101 Area were calculated based on increased traffic projections associated with each alternative. These traffic projections were determined by multiplying the quantities of new development by Institute of Traffic Engineers (I'I'E) trip generation factors deemed appropriate for each land use type. The percentage VI-198 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES increase in traffic volumes was then applied to the current roadways and traffic infrastructure maintenance budget for the East of 101 Area to estimate the annual cost increases that would be associated with new development in the area. The roadway and traffic infrastructure maintenance costs generated by the Market Oriented Alternative at buildout are expected to equal $1,035,219 in 1993 dollars. Mitigation Measure MUNI-M5: The City shall hire the required employees and purchase needed equipment to maintain infrastructure in the East of 101 Area. 4. No Project Alternative Impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be similar to those associated with the three alternatives of the Area Plan. Industrial and commercial development would not create a significant need for police and fire services, with the exception of hotel development and possible residential development on the Koll and Shearwater sites. Access to the Koll site would still be of significant concern if development were to occur on that site. Impacts to schools would be of significant concern if the Koll site were to be developed as an affordable housing site, as specified in the current Housing Element. These impacts would be either comparable or more significant, due to a potentially greater density, than those impacts associated with school facilities in the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. Residential development would also create a need for greater police and fire protection. VI-199 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MUNICIPAL AND RETAIL SERVICES AUGUST 1993 VI-200 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION M. Open Space and Recreation The proposed project would have a significant impact on open space and recreation if it would: • Conflict with an established recreational land use in the area. • Inhibit the ability to provide recreational opportunities in the future. Create a shortage of park and open space facilities for the residents of South San Francisco. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Park and fishing facilities are already provided in the East of 101 Area vicinity of the Oyster Point Marina and Point San Bruno. In addition, The Draft Area Plan's Recreation Element provides for the continued provision of an open space network along the San Francisco Bayshore. The City's Parks and Recreation Department does not provide recreation programs or playgrounds in the East of 101 Area, since there are no residences. The implementation of the Directed Growth Alternative will not impact the current availability of open space and recreation facilities because no residential uses are proposed. Therefore, no impacts or mitigation measures are identified. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative As with the Directed Growth Alternative, this alternative would include policies in the Plan Recreation Element that would provide an open space network along the bayshore. However, residential units in this alternative would also create a need for developed park facilities. Impact OS-Pl: The residential units in the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would generate demand for new park and recreation facilities. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would allow for development of 1,100 residential units on the Koll property in the north portion of the VI-201 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION planning area. These residences would require on-site park and recreation facilities. The City of South San Francisco has no formally adopted standard for park provision. However, a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents is common in the Bay Area, and this standard is referenced in City documents. Assuming an average of 1.7 residents per unit, the 1,100 units would generate 1,870 residents and demand for 5.6 acres of parkland. However, this standard would not be appropriate in the East of 101 Area, since the area has ample Bay access and recreational amenities; therefore, a standard of one acre per 1,000 residents has been assumed. With this standard, a neighborhood park of at least 1.9 acres should be provided as part of residential development on the Koll site. Mitigation Measure OS-P1: A neighborhood park should be provided as part of residential development on the Koll site. The park should be developed by the project sponsor and dedicated to the City for public use. 3. Market Oriented Alternative As with the Directed Growth Alternative, this alternative would include policies in the Recreation Element of the Area Plan that would provide an open space network along the Bay shore. However, residential units in this alternative would also create a need for developed park facilities. Impact OS-M1: The project would generate demand for new park and recreation facilities. The Market Oriented Alternative would allow for development of 3,388 residential units on the Koll and Shearwater properties in the north portion of the planning area. These additional residences would require additional park and recreation facilities. Assuming a standard for parkland development of one acre per 1,000 residents, as described under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, neighborhood parks totaling at least 5.8 acres should be provided as part of residential development on the Koll and Shearwater sites. Mitigation Measure OS-M1: Adequate neighborhood parks should be provided as part of residential development on the Koll and Shearwater sites. Park sites should be developed by project sponsors and dedicated to the City for public use. VI-202 AUGUST 1993 4. No Project Alternative EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Under the No Project Alternative, development would still be prohibited within the 100 foot jurisdiction of the BCDC, and Bay Trail improvements would be required with all new construction. Recreation facilities, such as picnic tables, fish cleaning stations, and shell fishing areas, could still be provided under the City's Park and Open Space Master Plan, although financing of such facilities is not currently programmed. Under the No Project Alternative, residential development could also occur in the East of 101 Area, although the amount of residential use cannot be predicted, so the demand for new parks cannot be calculated. VI-203 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AUGUST 1993 VI-204 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY N. Air Quality The project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on air quality if pollutant emissions would:. • Cause a violation of an ambient air quality standard. • Contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Conflict with adopted environmental plans, policies, or regulations for air pollutants. The Existing Conditions Report contains a discussion of ambient air quality standards. Table 35 in the report provides a summary of State and federal ambient standards. Project-generated pollutant emissions which lead to concentrations exceeding these standards at sensitive receptor locations would be considered significant. Project conflicts with the environmental plans, policies, and regulations discussed in the Existing Conditions Report would also be considered a significant impact; of particular relevance are the 1991 Clean Air Plan, and applicable significance criteria set forth in the BAAQMD Guidelines. These criteria are summarized in Table 35. Significance criteria are intended as thresholds by which it is determined if regional agency review, land planning changes, TDM~TSM implementation or Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) should be applied. The following discussion evaluates each alternative. A summary comparison of indirect emissions is shown in Table 36. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Pollutant emissions would be generated by construction activities in the East of 101 Area, and by operation, occupation, and use of the future development. Construction activities would result in fugitive dust and construction vehicle exhaust emissions. Operational pollutant emissions would vary in type and quantity among the designated land uses. VI-205 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY AUGUST 1993 Table 35 POLLUTION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA (from BAAQMD) .Test Description/Standard of Significance (1) CO concentrations in excess of State or federal standards (see Table 34 of Existing Conditions Report). (2) VOC, NOx, SOy PM10 emissions from direct and indirect sources in excess of 150 pounds per day (Ib/day); CO emissions in excess of 550 Ib/day. (3) Any criteria pollutant emissions from direct and indirect sources in excess of 1 percent of County emissions, or if solely indirect emissions in excess of 1 percent of County transportation-related emissions. (4) For point sources, modelled concentrations in excess of State or federal standards. (5) Population or employment projections in excess of most recent ABAG projections. Table 36 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON FOR INDIRECT EMISSIONS (Ib/day) Planned Alternative Directed Growth Commercial Market Oriented Average Daily Emissions VOC 1,408 1,428 1,405 CO 44,818 44,326 44,788 NOx 4,676 4,429 4,754 PM10 1,878 1,811 1,931 Change from Baseline Conditions VOC 368/35% 389/37% 366/35% CO 9,566/27% 9,065/26% 9,527/27% NOx 715/18% 469/12% 793/20% PMlp 356/23% 289/19% 409/27% Percent of County Emissions VOC .51 .54 .51 CO 1.83 1.74 1.83 NOx .94 .61 1.04 PMlo 2.80 2.30 3.22 VI-206 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY a. Construction Impacts. A large amount of new construction would occur under the Directed Growth Alternative, and all other Plan alternatives. While construction activities and their associated emissions would vary from project to project, the types and sources of construction-related emissions would be similar among projects and land uses. Impact AIR-Dl: Grading, scraping, and other earthmoving activities would generate fugitive dust emissions which would be likely to generate particulate concentrations in excess of State or federal standards. Without mitigation, this would be a significant impact of construction activities, potentially causing short-term violations of the State or federal PMTO standards. Grading, scraping, and other earthmoving activities would generate fugitive dust emissions. These emissions, while short-term, would be likely to generate particulate concentrations in excess of State or federal PMlo standards. Without mitigation, this would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures could reduce particulate emissions by up to 50 percent, thereby reducing the identified impact to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-Dla: The City should require construction specifications to incorporate dust abatement practices, such as frequent watering, the use of soil binders or palliatives, and sweeping mud and debris from local streets. Mitigation Measure AIR-Dlb: The City should require that construction contractors cover all stockpiles of loose soil, sand and other small particulate materials, and cover all such materials being hauled to and from individual construction sites. Mitigation Measure AIR-Dlc: The speed of all construction vehicles should be limited while on-site. b. Operational Impacts. The Directed Growth Alternative, and all other alternatives, could have operational impacts of several types: Local concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) could occur along heavily travelled roadways. Regional levels of pollutants including NOX, S02 and VOC could be increased by Plan area traffic. • Industrial facilities could release high levels of pollutants. VI-207 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY Most operational impacts from the Directed Growth Alternative, and the other Plan alternatives, would be indirect impacts resulting from traffic. Because the Directed Growth Alternative would designate most undeveloped parcels in the Plan area as either Planned Industrial or Planned Commercial, most new development would attract vehicle trips to the Plan area. A summary of indirect emissions is shown in Table 37. (1) Local Impacts. Emissions associated with the Directed Growth Alternative would increase local pollutant concentrations, particularly CO, along roadways by attracting vehicle trips, which could lead to violations of State or federal air quality standards. The traffic volume analysis in Section F of this chapter shows that at several intersections the Directed Growth Alternative would increase through volumes by between 13 and 66 percent. These intersections include Grand/Airport/NB 101 Ramps, East Grand/Forbes, Airport/Produce, Produce/SB 101 off-ramp, and South Airport/Gateway. Traffic congestion associated with the Directed Growth Alternative could lead to violations of the State or federal ambient CO standards, particularly at heavily traveled intersections. No accurate estimate of localized pollutant concentrations that would result from this alternative, or the other alternatives, is available. Calculation of local pollutant concentrations requires in-depth information on traffic congestion, weather conditions and intersection geometrics that are not available at this stage of planning. However, the Area Plan includes policies that set the minimum intersection Level of Service in the East of 101 Area at D, and that require a series of roadway improvements to maintain this level of service. As long as this level of service is maintained, localized pollutant concentrations would not be significant. (2) Regional Impacts. Impact AIR-D2: The Directed Growth Alternative would have the potential of increasing emissions and would significantly contribute to regional pollutants such as NOx and VOC, which would exceed BAAQMD standards of significance. Regional air quality problems relate primarily to ozone formation, and emissions of ozone precursor pollutants such as NOx and VOC as discussed in the Existing Conditions Report. Table 37 provides generalized estimates of indirect regional emissions associated with the Directed Growth Alternative. VI-208 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY Table 37 DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE INDIRECT EMISSIONS SUMMARYa (lb/day) Land Use VOC CO NOX FM10 Planned Commercial 24 662 49 22 Light Industrial 26 707 64 31 Planned Industrial 59 2,096 247 93 Coastal Commercial 10 347 41 15 Airport 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 0 0 0 Commercial/Industrial 16 486 45 19 Coastal/Industrial S 184 22 8 Open Space/Other 0 0 0 0 Total Peak Hour Emissionsb 141 4,482 468 188 Average Daily Emissions` 1,408 44,818 4,676 1,878 Project Change From Baseline 368 9,566 715 356 Percentage of San Mateo County Emissionsd 0.51 1.83 0.94 2.80 a Project-generated indirect source emissions based on projected building square footage, area-specific trip-generation rates for peak hour traffic, EMFAC7EP composite emission factors, and emission calculation methodologies outlined in BAAQMD's Air Quality and Urban Development: Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Projects and Plans. b Totals may not sum due to rounding. c Peak-hour emissions assumed to represent 10% of average daily emissions. d San Mateo County emissions were calculated using inventory and projection data contained in BAAQMD's Emission Inventory Source Category Methodologies (January 1992). 2010 emissions are, in Ib/day, 71,615 of VOC, 521,767 of CO, 76,379 of NOX, and 12,704 of PMlo• As shown in the table, the Directed Growth Alternative would increase ozone precursor emissions by about 35 percent for VOC, and 20 percent for NOS. Average emissions generated by the Directed Growth Alternative would be about 370 lb/day of VOC, and 715 lb/day of NOX, in excess of the BAAQMD standard of significance of 150 lb/day.l 1 Emissions generated by the Directed Growth Alternative represent total emissions generated with Directed Growth Alternative development, less total emissions generated by future baseline development. VI-209 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY The Existing Conditions Report discusses means of reducing indirect emissions. These means include creating mixed residential and commercial land uses, locating high density residential or commercial development near transit stations or in areas well served by other public transit, and designing neighborhoods that encourage pedestrian as opposed to vehicular traffic. A mixed residential and commercial land use would enable residents of the area to walk to grocery stores, dry cleaners, and specialty shops. A mixed commercial-office and commercial-retail land use would allow area employees to eat, shop, or run errands within walking distance of their work site. High density commercial or residential development near transit stations would encourage use of public transit, particularly if parking in the employment center is limited or is expensive. Finally, close attention to neighborhood design and characteristics, with respect to building setbacks, variety of commercial land uses, landscaping, sidewalks, and crosswalks, can encourage pedestrian or bicycle travel. However, many of these measures are not practical in the East of 101 Area due to market constraints and the existing land use pattern, which is already set. Mixed use projects with residences are particularly infeasible due to noise constraints and land use compatibility issues. Thus, increases in localized emissions represent a significant unavoidable impact of the Plan. It should also be noted that these emissions would be less than those generated by the No Project Alternative, primarily because the Area Plan limits the density of development, thereby decreasing traffic and air pollutants attributable to the study area. Despite the fact that this would be a significant unavoidable impact, the following measure should be implemented to minimize air quality impacts from vehicle trips: Mitigation Measure AIR-D2: The City should attempt to encourage development which would facilitate walking, bicycling and use of public transit. Within the bounds of the proposed Plan, such development practices could include: • Encouraging mixed commercial-office and a variety of commercial-retail land uses. This would enable Plan area employees to lunch, shop, or seek other commercial services without relying on vehicle travel. For this development to work, commercial-office development should be no more than afive- minute walk from commercial-retail services, and the commercial- retail area should provide diverse services in apedestrian-oriented atmosphere. VI-210 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALrTY • Requiring developers to locate parking lots behind office structures, to encourage non-vehicular accessibility. • Either improving access to the existing CalTrain depot, or moving the CalTrain depot to the Shearwater area. In either case, the depot should provide fully enclosed shelters, ticket agents, and well-maintained convenience/retail facilities adjacent to the depot. • Coordinating shuttle services in the Plan area. Currently, major employment centers, such as Genentech, the Tomoe-Oyster Point Marina Business Park, and Imatron, provide shuttle services to BART stations, the CalTrain depot, and downtown South San Francisco. The City should encourage development of a consolidated shuttle system that would serve large and small employment centers, and would operate with reasonable frequency (every 15 or 20 minutes along main travel routes) during commute as well as non-commute hours. • Providing a center for exchange of ridesharing information. Employees in the Plan area could reach a wider pool for potential ridesharing with this alternative. These types of measures are suggested by the BAAQMD, and many are already included in the Area Plan. (3) Direct Emissions. Heavily polluting new industrial facilities would not be allowed in the area under Area Plan Policy LU-16. Moreover, all new facilities would be subject to BAAQMD permitting procedures, which preclude an individual project from independently causing air quality violations, or from emitting hazardous quantities of toxic pollutants, without implementing mitigatory control measures at other sites. Since each individual industrial project would have to conform to BAAQMD standards, the potential for direct emissions is not considered a significant impact. c. Consistencywith Air Quality Planning Guidelines. Impact AIR-D3: The Directed Growth Alternative would not be consistent with all of the planning guidelines presented in the 1991 Clean Air Plan or BAAQMD Guidelines. The Directed Growth Alternative would result in substantial air quality impacts, primarily because it would consist of land uses which would attract vehicle trips to the Plan area, and would not include planning for high-density, mixed-use community-oriented development patterns. VI-211 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY AUGUST 1993 The Directed Growth Alternative would include some mixed Light Industrial and Planned Commercial land uses, which could eliminate some need for motor vehicle travel between work sites and services. This alternative would not, however, include residential zones within walking or bicycling distance of work sites or services, and Light Industrial and Planned Commercial would have mandated low Floor Area Ratios (FAR). Low FARs indicate that commercial and light industrial developments would be low density structures with generous landscaping and parking facilities. Low density developments do not encourage use of alternate transportation modes. Development of land uses which would incorporate high-density, mixed-use community-oriented development patterns, while favorable from an air quality perspective, could cause impacts with respect to other environmental disciplines. Residential development is not suitable in the Plan area due to noise, land use compatibility and municipal service concerns. Thus, the Directed Growth Alternative would be inconsistent with the planning guidelines set forth in the 1991 Clean Air Plan, which would be a significant, adverse impact of the alternative. Mitigation Measure AIR-D3: Measure AIR-D2 should be implemented to address plan consistency as much as is feasible in the area. Impact AIR-D4: The Directed Growth Alternative would result in exceedances of BAAQMD significance criteria for Significance Tests 2 and 3. As described in Table 35, BAAQMD Significance Test 1 relates to CO concentrations, generally due to local traffic congestion. As discussed above, no significant impacts are anticipated in this area. BAAQMD Signibcance Test 2 relates to regional emissions. As discussed under Impact AIR-D1 and AIR-D2, ozone precursors, CO, and PMIO could be generated in excess of the 150 lb/day standard. Mitigation measure AIR-D1 provides control of PMIO emissions, but regional emissions from traffic and point sources would be significant. BAAQMD Significance Test 3 states that a project would create a significant impact if it would generate more than one percent of a county's air pollutants for a given pollutant. Table 37 shows estimated indirect emissions in San Mateo County and compares them with indirect emissions associated with the VI-212 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY Directed Growth Alternative.2 As shown, the Directed Growth Alternative would generate less than one percent of San Mateo County emissions of VOC and NOX, but would produce 1.8 percent of County-wide CO emissions, and 2.8 percent of County-wide PMIO emission. This would represent a significant impact. BAAQMD Significance Test 4 relates to point source emissions. As outlined above, industrial facilities are subject to BAAQMD permitting procedures that limit individual emissions, but could result in a cumulative impact to the area. Area Plan Policy LU-16 also specifically disallows heavily polluting industries, in order to further reduce the type and amount of pollutants from Plan land uses. No significant impact would result. BAAQMD Significance Test 5 evaluates the proposed project's consistency with the 1982 Clean Air Plan and 1992 ABAG projections and related assumptions, goals and programs for attaining air quality standards. As discussed in Section E, population and employment projections for San Mateo County would not exceed ABAG projections with the Directed Growth Alternative. This alternative would, therefore, have aless-than-significant effect according to BAAQMD Significance Test 5. Mitigation Measure AIR-D4: Measures AIR-Dla, -D1b, -Dlc and -D2 should be implemented to address construction and vehicular-related impacts on PMIO concentrations and vehicle emissions. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative The impacts associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative are similar to those associated with the Directed Growth Alternative and mitigation measures would be identical to those discussed in the Directed Growth Alternative section. a. Construction Impacts. Construction types and sources associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would not differ measurably from those associated with the Directed Growth Alternative. Construction impacts and significance determinations would be the same as described for the Directed Growth Alternative; therefore, the mitigation measures required for this alternative would also be the same. 2 While Significance Test 3 applies to combined direct and indirect project emissions, direct emissions associated with Directed Growth Alternative development could not be estimated. The assessment with respect to Significance Test 3 compared total San Mateo County mobile source emissions with total project mobile source emissions. VI-213 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY Impact AIR-Pl: Grading scraping, and other earthmoving activities would generate fugitive dust emissions which would be likely to generate particulate concentrations in excess of State or federal standards. Without mitigation, this would be a significant impact of construction activities, potentially causing short-term violations of the State or federal PMIO standards. Mitigation Measure AIR-Pla: The City shall require construction specifications to incorporate dust abatement practices, such as frequent watering, the use of soil binders or palliatives, and sweeping mud and debris from local streets. Mitigation Measure AIR-Plb: T11e City shall require that construction contractors cover all stockpiles of loose soil, sand and other small particulate materials, and cover all such materials being hauled to and from individual construction sites. Mitigation Measure AIR-Plc: The speed of all construction vehicles should be limited while on-site. b. Operational Impacts. Because the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would designate most undeveloped parcels in the East of 101 Area as either Planned Industrial, Planned Commercial, or Residential, most new development would attract vehicle trips to the area. A summary of indirect emissions is shown in Table 38. (1) Local Impacts. Local air quality impacts could result from high . CO concentrations near heavily traveled roadways, or from locally accumulated concentrations of industrial facility emissions, such as N02, SOy or CO. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would increase through vehicle volumes by between 13 and 61 percent at intersections where future traffic conditions indicate congested conditions, very similar to the Directed Growth Alternative. However, no significant impacts would be expected since traffic levels of service would be maintained at D or better through the Area Plan. (2) Regional Impacts. Impact AIR-P2: The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would have the potential of increasing emissions and would significantly contribute to regional pollutants such as NOx and VOC, which would exceed BAAQMD standards of significance. Table 38 provides generalized estimates of indirect emissions associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. The Planned Commercial VI-214 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY Table 38 PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE INDIRECT EMISSIONS SUMMARI'a (lb/day) :Land Use VOC CO NOX PM10 Planned Commercial 49 1,325 98 45 Light Industrial 26 693 63 30 Planned Industrial 52 1,832 216 81 Coastal Commercial 15 537 63 24 Residential 2 45 3 2 Total Peak Hour Emissionsb 143 4,433 443 181 Average Daily Emissions` 1,428 44,326 4,429 1,811 Project Change From Baseline 389 9,065 469 289 Percentage of San Mateo County Emissionsd 0.54 1.74 0.61 2.3 a Project-generated indirect source emissions based on projected building square footage, area-specific trip-generation rates for peak hour traffic, EMFAC7EP composite emission factors, and emission calculation methodologies outlined in BAAQMD's Air Quality and Urban Development: Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Projects and Plans. b Totals may not sum due to rounding. c Peak-hour emissions assumed to represent 10% of average daily emissions. d San Mateo County emissions were calculated using inventory and projection data contained in BAAQMD's Emission Inventory Source Category Methodologies (January 1992). 2010 emissions are, in Ib/day, 71,61.5 of VOC, 521,767 of CO, 76,379 of NOX, and 12,704 of PMlO- Emphasis Alternative would increase ozone precursor emissions by about 37 percent for VOC, and 12 percent for NOx. Average emissions generated by the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be about 390 Ib/day of VOC, and 470 lb/day of NOX, in excess of the BAAQMD standard of significance of 150 lb/day. This alternative would have a significant unavoidable impact on regional air quality. It should be noted that these emissions would be less than those generated by the No Project Alternative, primarily because the Area Plan limits the density of development, thereby decreasing traffic and air pollutants attributable to the study area. Despite this significant unavoidable impact, the following measure should be implemented to minimize air quality impacts from vehicle trips. VI-215 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure AIR-P2: The City should attempt to encourage development which would facilitate walking, bicycling and use of public transit. Within the bounds of the proposed Plan, such development practices could include: • Encouraging mixed commercial-office and a variety of commercial-retail land uses. This would enable Plan area employees to lunch, shop, or seek other commercial services without relying on vehicle travel. For this development to work, commercial-office development should be no more than afive- minute walk from commercial-retail services, and the commercial- retail area should provide diverse services in apedestrian-oriented atmosphere. • Requiring developers to locate parking lots behind office structures, to encourage non-vehicular accessibility. • Either improving access to the existing CalTrain depot, or moving the CalTrain depot to the Shearwater area. In either case, the depot should provide fully enclosed shelters, ticket agents, and well-maintained convenience/retail facilities adjacent to the depot. • Coordinating shuttle services in the Plan area. Currently, major employment centers, such as Genentech, the Tomoe-Oyster Point Marina Business Park, and Imatron, provide shuttle services to BART stations, the CalTrain depot, and downtown South San Francisco. The City should encourage development of a consolidated shuttle system that would serve large and small employment centers, and would operate with reasonable frequency (every 15 or 20 minutes along main travel routes) during commute as well as non-commute hours. • Providing a center for exchange of ridesharing information. Employees in the Plan area could reach a wider pool for potential ridesharing with this alternative. Many of these measures are already included in the Area Plan. (3) Direct Emissions. Heavily polluting new industrial facilities would not be allowed in the East of 101 Area under Area Plan Policy LU-16. Moreover, all new facilities would be subject to BAAQMD permitting procedures, which preclude an individual project from independently causing air quality violations, or from emitting hazardous quantities of toxic pollutants, without implementing mitigatory control measures at other sites. Since each individual industrial project would have to conform to BAAQMD standards, the potential for direct emissions is not considered a significant impact. VI-216 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY c. Consistency with Air Quality Planning Guidelines. Impact AIR-P3: The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would not be entirely consistent with all of the planning guidelines presented in the 1991 Clean Air Plan or BAAQMD Guidelines. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would not be consistent with the planning guidelines presented in the 1991 Clean Air Plan. Most newly designated land uses under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be for commercial development. While these land uses would attract vehicle trips, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative provides no indication that these commercial development would be easily accessible by any means other than vehicle travel. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would include no mixed land uses. The southern border of Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative residential development would be adjacent to Planned Commercial land uses. Depending on the access provided between these residential and commercial areas, and the type of services located in the commercial area, this juxtaposition could eliminate some home- to-shop vehicle trips. Planned Commercial development would, however, have mandated low Floor Area Ratios, indicating that the developments would be low density and may not be conducive to pedestrian travel. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would locate commercial land uses near the CalTrain depot, although commercial development in this area would not be high density. Even with its residential component, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would not emphasize mixed land uses located closely enough that private motorized transit between them would not be necessary. In addition, it would not provide high workplace densities and would not preclude motor- vehicle oriented design, such as large parking lots and service locations out of walking distance from work sites. This would be a significant, adverse impact of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. Mitigation Measure AIR-P3: Measure AIR-P2 should be implemented to address plan consistency as much as is feasible in the area. Impact AIR-P4: The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would result in exceedances of BAAQMD significance criteria for Significance Tests 2 and 3. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would have a significant impact with respect to Signilcance Test 2 because ozone precursor emissions associated with this development would be more than 150 lb/day. VI-217 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY Emissions associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would represent 1.7 percent of San Mateo County CO emissions, and 2.3 percent of PMIO emissions. VOC and NOX emissions would be less than the 1 percent threshold of Significance Test 3. Mitigation Measure AIR-P4: Measures AIR-Pla, -Plb, -Plc and -P2 should be implemented to address construction and vehicular-related impacts on CO and PMIO concentrations and emissions. 3. Market Oriented Alternative The impacts associated with the Market Oriented Alternative are similar to those associated with the Directed Growth Alternative and mitigation measures would be identical to those discussed in the Directed Growth Alternative section. a. Construction Impacts. Construction types and sources associated with the Market Oriented Alternative would not differ measurably from those associated with the Directed Growth Alternative. Construction impacts and significance determinations would be the same as described for the Directed Growth Alternative. The mitigation measures required for the Market Oriented Alternative would be the same as those for the Directed Growth Alternative. Impact AIR-Ml: Grading, scraping, and other earthmoving activities would generate fugitive dust emissions which would be likely to generate particulate concentrations in excess of State or federal standards. Without mitigation, this would be a significant impact of construction activities, potentially causing short-term violations of the State or federal PMIO standards. Mitigation Measure AIR-Mla: The City shall require construction specifications to incorporate dust abatement practices, such as frequent watering, the use of soil binders or palliatives, and sweeping mud and debris from local streets. Mitigation Measure AIR-Mlb: The City shall require that construction contractors cover all stockpiles of loose soil, sand and other small particulate materials, and cover all such materials being hauled to and from individual construction sites. Mitigation Measure AIR-Mlc: The speed of all construction vehicles should be limited while on-site. VI-218 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY b. Operational Impacts. (1) Local Impacts. Local air quality impacts could result from high CO concentrations near heavily traveled roadways, or from locally accumulated concentrations of industrial facility emissions, such as NO2, SOy or CO. The Market Oriented Alternative would increase through vehicle volumes by between 20 and 94 percent at intersections where future traffic conditions indicate congested conditions, which is substantially worse than either the Directed Growth or Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. However, no significant impacts would be expected since traffic levels of service would be maintained at D or better. (2) Regional Impacts. Because the Market Oriented Alternative would designate most undeveloped parcels in the East of 101 Area as either Planned Industrial, Planned Commercial, or Residential, most new development would attract vehicle trips to the area. A summary of indirect emissions is shown in Table 39. Impact AIR-M2: The Market Oriented Alternative would have the potential of increasing emissions and would significantly contribute to regional pollutants such as NOX and VOC, which would exceed BAAQMD standards of significance. Table 39 indicates that indirect emissions associated with the Market Oriented Alternative would represent a 35 percent increase in VOC emissions, and a 20 percent increase in NOX emissions, compared to future baseline emission estimates. Average emissions generated by the Market Oriented Alternative would be about 365 lb/day of VOC, and 470 lb/day of NOS, in excess of the BAAQMD Standard of Significance of 150 lb/day. This alternative would have a significant unavoidable impact on regional air quality. It should be noted that these emissions would be less than those generated by the No Project Alternative, primarily because the Area Plan limits the density of development, thereby decreasing traffic and air pollutants attributable to the study area. Despite this significant unavoidable impact, the following measure should be implemented to minimize air quality impacts from vehicle trips. Mitigation Measure AIR-P2: The City should attempt to encourage development which would facilitate walking, bicycling and use of public transit. Within the bounds of the proposed Plan, such development practices could include: VI-219 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY Table 39 MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE INDIRECT EMISSIONS SUMMARYa AUGUST 1993 I.aad Use VOC CO NOX PM10 Planned Commercial 9 232 17 8 Light Industrial 48 1,303 118 S7 Planned Industrial 71 2,511 296 111 Coastal Commercial 8 264 31 12 Residential S 139 10 S Commercial/Industrial 1 29 3 1 Total Peak Hour Emissionsb 141 4,479 47S 193 Average Daily Emissions 1,405 44,788 4,754 1,931 Project Change From Baseline 366 9,527 793 409 Percentage of San Mateo County Emissionsd 0.5 1 1.8 3 1.0 4 3.2 2 a Project-generated indirect source emissions based on projected building square footage, area-specific trip-generation rates for peak hour traffic, EMFAC7EP composite emission factors, and emission calculation methodologies outlined in BAAQMD's Air Quality and Urban Development: Guidelines for Assessing Impacts of Projects and Plans. b Totals may not sum due to rounding. c Peak-hour emissions assumed to represent 10% of average daily emissions. d San Mateo County emissions were calculated using inventory and projection data contained in BAAQMD's Emission Inventory Source Category Methodologies (January 1992). 2010 emissions are, in lb/day, 71,615 of VOC, 521,767 of CO, 76,379 of NOX, and 12,704 of PMlo- • Encouraging mixed commercial-office and a variety of commercial-retail land uses. This would enable Plan area employees to lunch, shop, or seek other commercial services without relying on vehicle travel. For this development to work, commercial-office development should be no more than afive- minute walk from commercial-retail services, and the commercial- retail area should provide diverse services in apedestrian-oriented atmosphere. Requiring developers to locate parking lots behind office structures, to encourage non-vehicular accessibility. Either improving access to the existing CalTrain depot, or moving the CalTrain depot to the Shealwater area. In either case, the VI-220 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALrTY depot should provide fully enclosed shelters, ticket agents, and well-maintained convenience/retail facilities adjacent to the depot. Coordinating shuttle services in the Plan area. Currently, major employment centers, such as Genentech, the Tomoe-Oyster Point Marina Business Park, and Imatron, provide shuttle services to BART stations, the CalTrain depot, and downtown South San Francisco. The City should encourage development of a consolidated shuttle system that would serve large and small employment centers, and would operate with reasonable frequency (every 15 or 20 minutes along main travel routes) during commute as well as non-commute hours. • Providing a center for exchange of ridesharing information. Employees in the Plan area could reach a wider pool for potential ridesharing with this alternative. Many of these measures are already included in the Area Plan. (3) Direct Emissions. Heavily polluting new industrial facilities would not be allowed in the East of 101 Area under Area Plan Policy LU-12. Moreover, all new facilities would be subject to BAAQMD permitting procedures, which preclude an individual project from independently causing air quality violations, or from emitting hazardous quantities of toxic pollutants, without implementing mitigatory control measures at other sites. Since each individual industrial project would have to conform to BAAQMD standards, the potential for direct emissions is not considered a significant impact. c. Consistency with Air Quality Planning Guidelines. Impact AIR-M3: The Market Oriented Alternative would not be consistent with all of the planning guidelines presented in the 1991 Clean Air Plan or BAAQMD Guidelines. The Market Oriented Alternative would not be consistent with the planning guidelines presented in the 1991 Clean Air Plan. Undeveloped parcels would be developed primarily for Residential, Light Industrial, and Planned Commercial uses under the Market Oriented Alternative. Each of these land uses would attract or generate vehicle trips. As with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, the Market Oriented Alternative would locate residential development in the northern part of the Plan area. Under the Market Oriented Alternative, however, no Planned Commercial land uses would be mixed with or near to the residential zone. Planned Commercial and Light Industrial development would have mandated low Floor Area Ratios, indicating that the may not be conducive to pedestrian travel. The Market VI-221 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN E[R IMPAC'T'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES AIR QUALITY AUGUST 1993 Oriented Alternative would locate Planned Commercial and Light Industrial land uses near the CalTrain depot. This development would not be high density. Even with its residential component, the Market Oriented Alternative would not emphasize mixed land uses located closely enough that private motorized transit between them would not be necessary. In addition it would not provide high workplace densities and would not preclude motor-vehicle oriented design, such as large parking lots and service locations out of walking distance from work sites. The Market Oriented Alternative's inconsistency with the planning goals set forth in the 1991 CAP would be a significant, adverse impact of the alternative. Mitigation Measure AIR-M2: Measure AIR-M2 should be implemented to address plan consistency as much as is feasible in the area. Impact AIR-M4: The Market Oriented Alternative would result in exceedances of BAAQMD significance criteria for Significance Tests 2 and 3. The Market Oriented Alternative would have a significant impact with respect to Significance Test 2 because ozone precursor emissions associated with this development, CO and PMIO, would be more than 150 lb/day. Emissions associated with the Market Oriented Alternative would represent 1.8 percent of San Mateo County CO emissions, 3.2 percent of PMIO emissions, and 1.0 percent of NOX emissions, as shown in Table 39. VOC emissions would be less than the 1 percent threshold of BAAQMD Significance Test 3. Mitigation Measure AIR-M4: Measures AIR-Mla, -Mlb, -Mlc and -M2 should be implemented to address construction and vehicular- related impacts on CO and PMlo concentrations and emissions. 4. No Project Alternative Impacts related to air quality for the No Project Alternative would be similar to those of the other three land use alternatives. Additional development would create additional vehicle commuters, thereby increasing emissions locally and regionally. However, the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative could potentially be greater in the extended future due to higher allowed densities and traffic generation, and since no new traffic improvement measures would be put in place. VI-222 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALITY O. Water Quality For the purposes of this report, a project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on water quality if it would: • Substantially degrade water quality or contaminate public water supply. • Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources or interfere with ground water recharge. Conflict with water quality objectives outlined in the RWQCB Basin Plan. Impacts to water quality in the project area due to changes in land use can be classified into those related to construction of new buildings and facilities, and operation and maintenance of those buildings and facilities after construction. These impacts would occur with each of the three alternatives, and the degree of impact would depend on the mix of land uses for each alternative. Table 40 summarizes and compares the operational water quality impacts of the three alternatives. Five water quality pollutants were used as estimators of water quality for the three growth alternatives. These pollutants are 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand (BODS), suspended solids, volatile solids, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen. The BODS is the amount of oxygen required for the decomposition of organic matter in water over 5 days. BODS is used to quantify the concentration of organic matter in a water body. Organics can come from vegetation, animals and their wastes, and vehicle fluids. BODS is measured by comparing the dissolved oxygen content in a sample of water, in milligrams per liter (mg/L), initially and after a 5-day incubation period. A higher BODS corresponds to a higher concentration of organic matter, thus requiring more oxygen for decomposition. The decomposition of organics will deplete the dissolved oxygen in a water body leaving less dissolved oxygen for fish and aquatic life. Organics may also include chlorinated pesticides and hydrocarbons such as gasoline. This classification of organic compounds will also exhibit BODS. In VI-223 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MCTIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALITY Table 40 COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY AUGUST 1993 Total BODS Suspended Solids Volatile Solids Phosphorus Nitrogen Load 96`of Load °6 of Load 96 of Load % of Load % of Alternative (lb/yr) Eldsting _(Ib/year} E~dsting (Ib/yr) EJdsting (lb/yr) Existing (Ib/yr) Existing Existing Conditions 21,960 100% 385,090 100% 198,750 100% 990 100% 3,930 100% Directed Growth 29,320 134% 468,930 122% 244,050 123 1,230 124% 4,820 123% Alternative Planned Commercial 33,370 152% 455,370 118% 244,070 123% 1,240 125% 4,860 124% Emphasis Alternative Market Oriented 22,760 104% 453,700 118% 229,730 116% 1,120 113% 4,430 113% Alternative VI-224 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALrTY addition to the depletion of oxygen in a receiving water body, these materials can be toxic to aquatic life. Total solids are defined as all that matter that remains as residue upon evaporation of a sample of water at 103 to 105°C, measured in mg/L. Total solids include dust, stones, sand, gravel, plastics, litter, and fine residues. Total solids can be divided into filterable and suspended solids. Suspended solids are those solids such as clay that will pass through a filter of a certain size. Suspended solids cause a sedimentation and clarify problem in receiving waters. Volatile solids are those suspended solids that can be driven off as gas at 600°C and are considered organic. Volatile solids, in addition to causing sedimentation and clarity problems, also contribute to the depletion of dissolved oxygen. Volatile solids are used to measure the biological stability of solids in water bodies. Phosphorus and nitrogen are the primary nutrients of concern in stormwater runoff. Nutrient sources include fertilizers used for landscaping, leaves and grass clippings, and animal wastes. Nutrients are essential for the growth of plants and animals, but when an excess of these nutrients is present in an aquatic system they will cause overstimulation of algae or aquatic weeds. Algal blooms can cause aesthetic problems as well as water quality and turbidity problems. Also, as these organisms die and are oxidized, they deplete the dissolved oxygen in the water body. This leaves less oxygen available for fish and other aquatic life. Excess phosphorus in particular can cause serious algae problems for an aquatic system. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Construction. During construction of development under the Directed Growth Alternative, and the other alternatives, increased sedimentation from grading and construction could occur. Often, construction activities entail stripping sites of vegetation and leaving open spaces susceptible to soil erosion. Eroded soil can raise sediment levels in local water bodies, increasing turbidity. Pollutants in the eroded soil can be carried into the water bodies as well. Plan Policy PF-12 would mitigate this potential impact. During construction of individual projects, erosion control measures would be required to reduce erosion and runoff. Such measures could include silt fences, drainage swales, and sedimentation ponds. b. O erp ation. The main determinant of operational water quality impacts would be the amount of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Runoff calculations for the three alternatives are shown in the discussion of storm drainage in the VI-225 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALITY Infrastructure section of this EIR (Section K). The actual quantity of run-off would be similar for each alternative, with 17,560 acre-inches per year for the Directed Growth Alternative. Typical stormwater concentrations for five pollutants have been used to estimate the pollutant loads for each alternative. The Existing Conditions Report shows existing calculated pollutant loads under existing conditions in the East of 101 Area, and describes the pollutants evaluated. Table 41 lists the typical pollutant concentrations for the new land uses proposed under the Area Plan. For mixed land uses, the typical pollutant concentrations were averaged. Open land was considered an "Other Developed" type of land use. Table 42 shows potential pollutant impacts for the Directed Growth Alternative. Changes in the amount of pollutants deposited within the project area, and changes in the concentration and loads of pollutants within runoff, are expected as a result of the operation of development allowed under the Directed Growth Alternative. Operation and maintenance of buildings and facilities constructed as part of the Directed Growth Alternative would affect water quality, altering the sources of water and pollutant runoff in the Plan area. The Directed Growth Alternative would generally designate land uses in the Plan area as either commercial, industrial, or open space. Each of these land uses has associated with it varying activities and development intensities, with varying types, quantities, and concentrations of water and pollutant runoff. Differing land uses can also affect the types of pollutants that are carried by runoff. Open spaces generally have relatively few types of pollutants on-site, hence runoff from open spaces can be relatively clean. At a commercial land use, vehicle traffic and parked cars would contribute oil, grease, and metals to the site's runoff. In residential areas, runoff could contain remnants of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as oil and metals from automobiles. Runoff from industrial areas could include a multitude of pollutant types, including those generated by automobiles, and those typically generated by the given industrial facility on the site. VI-226 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPAC'T'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALITY Table 41 TYPICAL CONCENTRATIONS OF NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS IN STORMWATER Non-Point-Source Pollutant, pounds per acre-inch of runoff Land Use BODS Suspended Solids Volatile Solids Total Phosphorus as Phosphate Nitrogen Residential 0.799 16.3 9.45 0.0336 0.131 Commercial 3.20 22.2 14.0 0.0757 0.296 Industrial 1.21 29.1 14.3 0.0705 0.277 Other Developed 0.113 2.70 2.6 0.00994 0.0605 Source: Walesh, Stuart G., 1989. Urban Surface Water Management Land use categories can also affect the intensity of activity and the number of people frequenting a given area, which in turn can affect the quantity of pollutants contributed to the local runoff. In addition, various land uses generate different concentrations of pollutants in runoff. Commercial and high density residential land uses can generate heavy automobile traffic, adding substantial quantities of oil, grease, and metals to the pollutant load. Open spaces would not attract vehicles, hence would contribute only small quantities of pollutants to the area's runoff. Industrial areas may not attract great numbers of vehicles, but would involve highly developed land uses, and could likely to contribute substantial waste products to the runoff pollutant load. Runoff that was previously spread out over a vacant lot can be concentrated into a storm drain or drainage channel. This can allow less time for pollutants to settle out or otherwise be removed (i.e., by soil adsorption or plant uptake) before discharging into an adjacent water body. Also, channelized stormwater may pick-up more pollutants than before due to increased water velocities. The increases in pollutant levels discussed above would have a less than significant impact on project area water quality. The total drainage area for Colma Creek is approximately 8,600 acres, of which approximately 80 percent is heavily urbanized. The project area is approximately 1,700 acres, of which approximately 60 percent drains into Colma Creek and the drainage channels while the remainder drains into the San Francisco Bay. The project area therefore makes up only about 9 percent of the Colma Creek drainage area. Therefore, changes in runoff water quality within the project area would not significantly change the water quality in the local creek and drainage channels since these water bodies already drain heavily urbanized areas. VI-227 L"' a _~ a w Q 3 ''JAS" ~r N r v H ~ a O A w H E~ W ~_~T O ~ 8 O O ~ O ~ 000 ~ N ~ ~. N ~t .~+ ~ ~ o E z ~j S q o N o N ~ o N o M ~ v, ~r, C N N r . O O O C O C O O O "J .gy ~ ~ 8 O $ ~ "'i O O .- O h O e~ C p G .w N v1 . - N .r d L 6. ~j .9 h O O O O O h O O b M O M O~ 8 v~ C O C C O O O O O O O C v y ' 9 'OqQ ~. ~ ~ M 0 ~ p ,M ~ pMp 0 S o n O ~ O p In a.l - M V O ^' .+ N N ~ ~tS = O M M S t~ a ~-i .Nr 0 D V _Q ~ 7 C .-~ 7 ..r R .-+ ~t O+ e{ 'r R . . fV .`7 .Y v p M M v0i O ~ v~ ppp N O ~ 0 N v~ p M O e0{ ~O p t~l q ~ ~ vMl W 0 ~ ~ M ~ ti ~p N L C ' ~ O O N 0 p M b b ~ ~ r' H ~ ~ N N N N N .~-~ v ~ N v ~ N N ~ ~ '0 -~ ~ ~ O '~ $ O Q`~? O O 8 R O M ~ N M . ~. [~ M 00 N N M 'r N h n. ~ ~+ -} ~' ` N N N N N 000 N N .~+ ~ M .-~ ri M O fV (V O 'va ? g N N I~ a ~ ~ ~ ~, A •c y F ' C ~ ~ N ~ cO C ~ ~ '~ ~EEQ _ ~ C U v, ~ C 0 V ~ ~~" e0 ~. ~ m :~ ~ `o° 4 a ~ ' E g o ~' F~ ~ a o. U a C U O ~1 ~1 °a f~.W V A N N 5 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALITY Moreover, the Area Plan would include several features that would help to reduce water quality impacts. New development in the East of 101 Area would be required to include landscaped areas, which would help to remove pollutants from runoff. Stormwater management would also be required to further reduce the impact of the project on water quality. In conformance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), all development in the East of 101 Area affecting a site over five acres would require anon-point source stormwater discharge permit. In this permit, the City has stated that it will implement best management practices, including requiring parking lots, technological industries to provide on-site treatment of stormwater or provide for other types of mitigation. On-site treatment of stormwater may include providing detention facilities, oil/water separators, and chemical addition. Off-site mitigation measures may include piping runoff to regional facilities. As stated in the water quality section of the Existing Conditions Report, only shallow groundwater is recharged by surface runoff. Also, the closest domestic groundwater wells are located west of the site and use deeper groundwater. Changes in land use will likely result in fewer areas that surface water can percolate into the groundwater as a result of increased buildings and more paving. Therefore, changes in the water quality of water percolating from the project area into the groundwater should have a less than significant impact on the quality of groundwater used for drinking water. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Construction. As with the Directed Growth Alternative, increased sedimentation from construction and development activities associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative could affect water quality. Construction activities would affect water quality by increasing erosion within the Plan area, raising sediment levels in local water bodies. Associated impacts would be similar to those discussed for the Directed Growth Alternative. Plan Policy PF-12 would mitigate this potential impact. During construction of individual projects, erosion control measures would be required to reduce erosion and runoff. Such measures could include silt fences, drainage swales, and sedimentation ponds. b. O erp ation. Changes in the amount of pollutants deposited within the project area, and changes in the concentration and loads of pollutants within runoff, would be expected as a result of the operation of development allowed VI-229 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALITY under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. Operational activities associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would affect water quality by altering sources of water and pollutant runoff in the Plan area. Table 43 shows pollutant levels projected under this alternative. The associated impacts would be similar to the Directed Growth Alternative. This alternative would result in the lowest estimated pollutant loads for any of the three alternatives, but the differences would be insignificant for four of the five pollutant loads evaluated. BODS would be increased by more under this alternative than under the other alternatives, because Planned Commercial uses have the highest BODS generation rates. In the case of all pollutants, however, overall impacts would not be significant, so no mitigation measures are required. 3. Market Oriented Alternative a. Construction. As with the Directed Growth Alternative, increased sedimentation from construction and development activities associated with the Market Oriented Alternative could affect water quality. Construction activities would affect water quality by increasing erosion within the Plan area, raising sediment levels in local water bodies. Associated impacts would be similar to those discussed for the Directed Growth Alternative. Plan Policy PF-12 would mitigate this potential impact. During construction of individual projects, erosion control measures would be required to reduce erosion and runoff. Such measures could include silt fences, drainage swales, and sedimentation ponds. b. Operation. Changes in the amount of pollutants deposited within the project area, and changes in the concentration and loads of pollutants within runoff, would be expected as a result of the operation of development allowed under the Market Oriented Alternative. Operational activities associated with the Market Oriented Alternative would affect water quality by altering sources of water and pollutant runoff in the Plan area. Table 44 shows pollutant levels projected under this alternative. The associated impacts would be similar to the Directed Growth Alternative. This alternative would result in the lowest estimated pollutant loads for any of the three alternatives, but the differences would be insignificant for four of the five pollutant loads evaluated. BODS would be increased by significantly less under this alternative than under the other alternatives, because the amount of VI-230 w a w z O Q H c"' a~ Q a 3Q FBI A~ I~~I F~1 a> ["~ W ~~a ~a~ ww °z~ a° Hz ~' a w coi- e4i ~ v° o 0 0 °~, ~~ .: 0 v . ~ Z o 0 0 0 M .., ., c~, N N N N N . + O m C C C O C C C O O U 3 O O ~ O O O O M O~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ t~ V1 V1 [~ h O .-~ .-~ Q R m O O O O O O O O a O O U 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F+ .. c g i ~°n $ cg ~ ~ ° ° cg 0 o v~ 9 p p p ~ M ~ N ~ N ~ J~ 0 0 p ~ C, S ~ ~' .. ~ ~ ~ .r O~ R .. et .~ f V O R U3 0 o g o ° ~ o o ~ ~ ~~vq '~ ~ M b O 00 ~ V! r ~ . N N N N N ~ N N U a N .d b M N ~ O ~ O O `'' M O ~ rl •~. M l~ ~ N M A ~. ~ N N N N N W N N ~~+ t+1 .+ '+ f+) .~ C fV fV C G _u ~ Q U ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ a ~a ~ N ~ ., .. ~~ aQ Y • a a ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ 'G ~ Y E ~ E 'c .C u 6 ~ ~ y E V Cg 7 ~ o° ~ ~o c " ~ O v U ~ 'C n"i . . L `p r. ~ L v 8 ~ ~ p, ~ 00 t 0 ~' N E F ~ 6 a. la a ..~ =O a ~ p U a ~ ~ q U ~ q V O C F rl N 5 h w a 0 w Q o ~ ] a o~a FoQ..~ w~3 a a H 3 A ., N~ a w w °z a W H H W i3 0 ~ ~ ~ cgi ° ° ~ .+ N ~ O~p {p O :. z ... J ~ ~ N O N ~ O O ~ vl Vl h N N N U~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ c ~ $ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ° y i L ~ w a 0 ~ ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g H U ~, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O~ M ~ OD M O N ri y b v ~ O v1 b l~ V1 N BOO W ~O .r ~O N '7 ~ ~ O ter ti N _ . ~ ~ ti ~-~ ti ~i ~ ~ R ~ N Q V . i . r . . .i _ M ~1 N ~ ~ ~ O '.~ '0 ,, ~ t~ f O~ vi N o0 ~ P ~ O + N y~j ~ N+ N .-~ 7 G N O O N O p M b V O C~ N N N N N ~ v ~ N v ~ N N h ; g ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ , rrrill N h 00 N N N y. ~ C N N N N N pp 00 N N ~ C N M f+l ti C fV (V C O O U V ~ W ~V a N ~ ~ ~ O N i. ga t~ K M 00 O. .r ~- a~ p ~? ~ 'G ~ L ~ •G G y L ~ E 7 ~ ~ ~ ~C ~.'~ Cg y 7 ' 9 ~ E ,Q ~ ~ + • N o C v ~ C ~ G V y C vii m ~ y Q a ~ ~ y g ~ F a. a U a c o W Q F w o~ 0 N M N 5 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALITY Planned Commercial use under this alternative would be lowest. In the case of all pollutants, impacts would not be significant, so no mitigation measures are required. 4. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would create impacts to water quality which would be similar to the impacts associated with the three alternatives of the Area Plan. VI-233 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACT'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES WATER QUALITY AUGUST 1993 VI-234 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CULTURAL RESOURCES P. Cultural Resources The proposed Plan would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would: • Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or property of historic or cultural significance to a community. • Result in the disruption of context or actual destruction of historic resources. 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative) a. Archaeological Resources. As stated in the Existing Conditions Report, the East of 101 Area has a potential for the presence of prehistoric cultural resource sites. However, only one Native American archaeological site (CA-SMA-40) is located in, or adjacent to the area. The eastern boundary of this site has not been established, therefore, it is unknown whether the site extends into the East of 101 Area. Impact CU-D1: Construction and disturbance allowed by the Directed Growth Alternative could disrupt undiscovered cultural resource sites in the East of 101 Area. The fact .that the area is along the bayshore means that Native American use of the area could have occurred. The following measures would mitigate potential impacts that could occur if previously unknown resources are encountered. Mitigation Measure CU-Dla: If cultural resources are encountered during development in the East of 101 Area, development should cease immediately until a cultural resource consultant is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations. Mitigation Measure CU-Dlb: If any Native American resources are to be disturbed through East of 101 Area development, representatives of local Native American groups shall be involved in mitigation planning. VI-235 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CULTURAL RESOURCES AUGUST 1993 b. Historical Resources. No historic resources are known to exist in the East of 101 Area. However, unknown historic resources could exist, and they could be demolished to accommodate new East of 101 Area development. Impact CU-D2. Demolition of historic buildings in the East of 101 Area would constitute a significant loss of historic resources, if these buildings are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation Measure CU-D2a: Before demolition of any buildings over 50 years old takes place, the building should be evaluated by a qualified architectural historian to determine if it is eligible for the National Register. If a buildings is found to be eligible for the National Register, its demolition would be a significant, unmitigable impact. However, the following measures should be implemented to partially mitigate the impact. Mitigation Measure CU-D2b: The owner should complete a Historic American Building Survey (HAWS) Level I or Level II documentation of the prior to their demolition. The required level of documentation would be determined in consultation with the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the City of South San Francisco. Mitigation Measure CU-D2c: Archives related to historic operations at the buildings to be demolished should be made available for research by scholars on industrial history. Mitigation Measure CU-D2d: Elements of the buildings to be demolished should be preserved in museums or other locations. 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative a. Archaeological Resources. Impacts and mitigation measures would be the same as for the Directed Growth Alternative. Impact CU-Pl: Construction and disturbance allowed by the Planned Commercial Emphasis. Alternative would disrupt undiscovered cultural resources sites in the East of 101 Area. Mitigation Measure CU-Pla: If cultural resources are encountered during development in the East of 101 Area, development shall cease immediately until a cultural resource consultant is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations. VI-236 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CU-Plb: If any Native American resources are to be disturbed through Plan Area development, representatives of local Native American groups shall be involved in mitigation planning. b. Historical Resources. Impacts and mitigation measures would be the same as for the Directed Growth Alternative. Impact CU-P2. Demolition of historic buildings in the East of 101 Area would constitute a significant loss of historic resources, if these buildings are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation Measure CU-P2a: Before demolition of any buildings over 50 years old takes place, the building should be evaluated by a qualified architectural historian to determine if it is eligible for the National Register. If a buildings is found to be eligible for the National Register, its demolition would be a significant, unmitigable impact. However, the following measures should be implemented to partially mitigate the impact. Mitigation Measure CU-P2b: The owner should complete a Historic American Building Survey (HAWS) Level I or Level II documentation of the prior to their demolition. The required level of documentation would be determined in consultation with the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the City of South San Francisco. Mitigation Measure CU-P2c: Archives related to historic operations at the buildings to be demolished should be made available for research by scholars on industrial history. Mitigation Measure CU-P2d: Elements of the buildings to be demolished should be preserved in museums or other locations. 3. Market Oriented Alternative a. Archaeological Resources. Impacts and mitigation measures would be the same as for the Directed Growth Alternative. Impact CU-M1: Construction and disturbance allowed by the Market Oriented Alternative would disrupt undiscovered cultural resources sites in the East of 101 Area. VI-237 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CULTURAL RESOURCES AUGUST 1993 Mitigation Measure CU-Mla: If cultural resources are encountered during development in the East of 101 Area, development shall cease immediately until a cultural resource consultant is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations. Mitigation Measure CU-Mlb: If any Native American resources are to be disturbed through Plan Area development, representatives of local Native American groups shall be involved in mitigation planning. b. Historical Resources. Impacts and mitigation measures would be the same as for the Directed Growth Alternative. Impact CU-M2. Demolition of historic buildings in the East of 101 Area would constitute a significant loss of historic resources, if these buildings are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation Measure CU-M2a: Before demolition of any buildings over 50 years old takes place, the building should be evaluated by a qualified architectural historian to determine if it is eligible for the National Register. If a buildings is found to be eligible for the National Register, its demolition would be a significant, unmitigable impact. However, the following measures should be implemented to partially mitigate the impact. Mitigation Measure CU-M2b: The owner should complete a Historic American Building Survey (HAWS) Level I or Level II documentation of the prior to their demolition. The required level of documentation would be determined in consultation with the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the City of South San Francisco. Mitigation Measure CU-M2c: Archives related to historic operations at the buildings to be demolished should be made available for research by scholars on industrial history. Mitigation Measure CU-M2d: Elements of the buildings to be demolished should be preserved in museums or other locations. 4. No Project Alternative Since development in the East of 101 Area would continue to occur under the No Project Alternative, this alternative would have potential impacts, and require mitigation measures, similar to those for the other three alternatives. VI-238 Chapter 5 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS A. Environmentally Superior Alternative Of the alternatives considered, the Directed Growth would generally result in the lowest degree of environmental impact and is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Through this alternative, potential impacts of the other alternatives related to noise, land use, and schools would be avoided. The Planned Commercial and Market Oriented Alternative have unmitigatable significant impacts related to these issues. All three alternatives would have significant impacts related to air quality and circulation which cannot be avoided. B. Growth-Inducing Impacts The CEQA Guidelines define growth inducement as promotion of economic or population growth or construction of new housing. The proposed Plan would induce growth because it would directly increase industrial and office development within the City of South San Francisco. Approximately 25,525 jobs could be generated by industrial and office uses in the Plan area at buildout of the Directed Growth Alternative, with an increase of 3,885 jobs by 2003. This internal growth-inducing impact is a positive benefit of the Plan, since the area is already heavily developed but is somewhat underutilized. Development in this area would help to avoid the need for development in undeveloped outlying areas. Moreover, most impacts associated with the Plan would be mitigated. The increase in employment could increase demand for housing outside the East of 101 Area. It is impossible to foresee where this housing growth might occur, so it cannot be ascertained whether the housing would have adverse environmental effects. However, the inclusion of some transit-oriented design principals and the possible relocation of the CalTrain station in the area might encourage new employees working in the area to look for housing near transit, which would suggest that some housing growth required by the Plan would occur along transit corridors in existing urban areas. VI-239 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS C. Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. All alternatives, including the Directed Growth Alternative, would have unmitigatable significant impacts on air quality, and circulation. In addition, the Planned Commercial Emphasis and Market Oriented Alternative would have unavoidable significant environmental impacts with respect to noise, land use and schools. These impacts would not occur under the Directed Growth Alternative. Emissions associated with all three alternatives of the Area Plan would increase local pollutant concentrations by attracting vehicle trips to commercial and industrial areas, and by potentially introducing new stationary emission sources to the Plan area. Emissions of these local pollutants could lead to violation of State or federal air quality standards, and could contribute to regional pollutant concentrations. In addition, the Area Plan would not be consistent with the planning guidelines presented in the 1991 Clean Air Plan and would also be in conflict with the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's significance criteria. These inconsistencies are due to the Plan's lack of emphasis on mixed land uses located close enough to transit and each other that automobile transit would not be necessary, and to the lack of high workplace densities that would make frequent transit feasible. It should be noted, however, that impacts related to air quality under the Area Plan would be less than those of the No Project Alternative. The Area Plan limits the density of development, thereby decreasing traffic and air pollutants attributable to the East of 101 Area. In addition to impacts on air quality, all three alternatives would result in impacts to the southbound segment of Highway 101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue. This segment of the freeway is expected to exceed acceptable levels of service through intermediate development of all three alternatives. In addition, the Market Oriented Alternative would cause impacts to two other segments of Highway 101. Residential development, which is allowed under the Planned Commercial Emphasis and the Market Oriented Alternatives, would create potential conflicts with noise levels which currently exist in the East of 101 Area. Noise generators include the freeway, the railroad, and aircraft from the San Francisco International Airport. As shown in the Existing Conditions Report, instantaneous noise levels generated by aircraft reach 84 dBA, even at the locations which are furthest from the Airport. While it would be possible VI-240 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS through noise attenuation practices and site planning to provide indoor and outdoor areas shielded from the freeway and the railroad, it would be impossible to reduce the noise levels created by aircraft overflights to a level of insignificance. Therefore, residential development is not a component of the preferred Directed Growth Alternative. D. Short-Term Use versus Long-Term Productivity The East of 101 Area Plan emphasizes the long-term productivity of the area, while also attempting to allow for productive short-term uses as well. The Plan allows for a mixture of light industrial and commercial uses, and it reserves land for retail, office and hotel use, which is most likely to occur over the long term. The Plan also ensures the continued economic viability of the area by avoiding residential uses, which would conflict with the adjoining San Francisco International Airport and with industrial uses in the area. The Plan also includes policies to ensure the long-term preservation of existing natural and recreational resources in the area. Existing wetlands and sensitive species in the area would be protected, water pollution would be minimized, and recreational facilities would be enhanced through Plan policies and programs. E. Significant Irreversible Changes The CEQA Guidelines define significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involve in the proposed action should it be implemented. Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Access and development in the East of 101 Area have already been provided for and shaped by previous development and planning efforts. The land uses foreseen under all three alternatives are similar to those which already exist in the area. No new development patterns would occur, and development would not occur on any lands which have unique open space or natural resource potential. The East of 101 Area is already committed to the general uses described in the Area Plan. Thus, no new significant irreversible changes are expected as part of the proposed Area Plan. VI-241 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS F. Cumulative Impacts All impact assessments in this EIR take into consideration the cumulative impacts of growth under the proposed Area Plan. Regional policies and plans are taken into consideration in the Policy and Regulation Section. Those policies assessed include those of the Regional Water Quality Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. No conflicts with these regional plans and policies are expected, therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. With regard to population, employment, and housing, including jobs/housing balance, the analyses of this EIR use data for the City and the region from the Association of Bay Area Governments. Since these sources consider development implications at a regional level, they are assumed to encompass cumulative impact considerations. Traffic projections for the East of 101 Area Plan also take cumulative impacts into consideration. Developments which are approved in the City of South San Francisco were assumed to be built under this environmental analysis. These projects include over 900,000 square feet of development in the East of 101 Area, as shown in Table 15 of the Existing Conditions Report, plus approved development within the Terrabay Specific Plan District and other portions of the City of South San Francisco. Therefore, cumulative impacts are appropriately reflected in the traffic and circulation analysis included in this document. Cumulative air quality impacts are directly related to cumulative traffic impacts in the East of 101 Area. The analysis of air quality impacts is based upon the traffic analysis which considers cumulative development. Therefore, no cumulative impacts, other than those discussed in Section N of Chapter 4 of this report, are anticipated with implementation of the Area Plan alternatives. Infrastructure impacts also have taken cumulative development into consideration. New development approved within the City has been included in the analysis of sewer treatment plant capacity and the capacity of water and sewer lines. Table 32 of the Existing Conditions Report summarizes those developments which would add to the current sewage treatment demands. These demands were then used as a base in determining the impacts of the additional development allowed under the Area Plan. With these considerations, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. VI-242 AUGUST 1993 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS The demands for municipal and retail services and open space and recreation facilities also considered the implications of City-wide and regional demands. Once again, development which was planned and approved in the remainder of the City was taken into account in the analyses contained in this EIR. Generally, the Area Plan provides for improvements to facilities and service provisions, therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated other than those described and appropriately mitigated for within Chapter 4, The remaining environmental topics covered by this EIR are land use, visual and design factors, noise, hazardous materials, geotechnical factors, biology, water quality, and cultural resources. With respect to these categories, cumulative impacts are also considered within the analyses of Chapter 4. Generally, cumulative impacts cannot be expected to occur if the project does not cause any identified impact. For instance, if biological resources are protected by the Area Plan, no cumulative impacts to biological resources can be expected as a result of the Area Plan. In most cases, the Plan improves environmental conditions and policies for the East of 101 Area, therefore, cumulative conditions are expected to be better with than without the East of 101 Area Plan. VI-243 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN EIR AUGUST 1993 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ~-2~