HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Civic Center Final SEIRC ITY OF S OUTH S AN
F RANCISCO
C OMMUNITY C IVIC C AMPUS P ROJECT
FINAL SEIR
Prepared for:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
315 MAPLE STREET
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
Prepared by:
1 KAISER PLAZA, SUITE 1150
OAKLAND, CA 94612
OCTOBER 2017
C ITY OF S OUTH S AN
F RANCISCO
C OMMUNITY C IVIC C AMPUS P ROJECT
FINAL SEIR
Prepared for:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
315 MAPLE STREET
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
Prepared by:
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
1 KAISER PLAZA, SUITE 1150
OAKLAND, CA 94612
OCTOBER 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the EIR Process ........................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Response to Comments and FEIR Revisions ........................................................................... 1-1
1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval .................................................................... 1-1
2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Responses to Comment Letters on the Draft SEIR................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Comments and Responses ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Responses to Comment Letters .............................................................................................. 2-2
Response to Letter Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) .......................... 2-3
Response to Letter San Francisco International Airport (SFO) ............................................ 2-6
Response to Letter Mina Richardson (MR) ............................................................................. 2-8
Response to Letter Rob Bartoli (RB) ....................................................................................... 2-10
Response to Letter California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ....................... 2-12
Response to Letter County of San Mateo (CSM) ................................................................ 2-22
Response to Letter Rene Alejandro Ortega, Esq. (RAO) ................................................... 2-25
Response to Planning Commission Comments (PC) .......................................................... 2-33
3.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT SEIR
3.1 Amendments to the Draft SEIR ................................................................................................ 3-1
TABLES
2.0-1 Draft SEIR Comments Received .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.0-2 Community Civic Campus Elements ...................................................................................... 3-1
APPENDIX
Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Appendix B – Draft SEIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR PROCESS
This Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) is an informational document
prepared by the City of South San Francisco (City) to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed Community Civic Campus Project (the project). The primary objectives
of the EIR process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are to inform decision-
makers and the public about a project’s potential significant environmental effects, identify
possible ways to minimize significant effects, and consider reasonable alternatives to the project.
This SEIR has been prepared with assistance from the City’s environmental consultants, Michael
Baker International, along with Kimley-Horn and CSS Environmental Services, Inc., and reviewed
by City staff for completeness and adequacy in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC)
Sections 21000–21177 and the CEQA Guidelines.
As prescribed by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the lead agency, the City of South
San Francisco, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons
who have reviewed the Draft SEIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This
document, together with the Draft SEIR (incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15150), will comprise the Final SEIR for the project. Pursuant to CEQA
requirements, the City must certify the Final SEIR as complete and adequate prior to approval of
the project.
This Final SEIR contains individual responses to each written and verbal comment received
during the public review period for the Draft SEIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15088(b), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.
The City and its consultants have provided a good faith effort to respond in detail to all
significant environmental issues raised by the comments.
1.2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND FEIR REVISIONS
A Notice of Availability was published by the City and distributed to interested parties on July 12,
2017. The Draft SEIR was posted on the City’s website and available for public review and
comment between July 12, 2017, and August 28, 2017. Comments received during the public
review period are addressed in this Final SEIR.
1.3 EIR CERTIFICATION PROCESS AND PROJECT APPROVAL
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City Council must certify the SEIR as
complete and adequate prior to taking action on the proposed Community Civic Campus
Project.
Once the SEIR is certified and all information considered, using its independent judgment, the
City can take action on the project. While the information in the SEIR does not control the City’s
decision, the City must respond to each significant effect and mitigation measure identified in
the SEIR by making findings supporting its decision.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
1-2
This page intentionally left blank.
2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) was prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section 21000
et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The City of
South San Francisco (the City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the project and
has the principal responsibility for approving the project. This Final SEIR assesses the expected
environmental impacts resulting from the approval and implementation of the project and
responds to comments received on the Draft SEIR.
2.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT SEIR
The following commenters submitted written comments on the Draft SEIR. The comment period for
the Draft SEIR began July 12, 2017, and ended August 28, 2017. Confirmation of lead agency
compliance with CEQA for public review of the Draft SEIR was received from the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research on July 12, 2017. The South San Francisco Planning Commission heard
comments on the Draft SEIR on August 17, 2017.
TABLE 2.0-1
DRAFT SEIR COMMENTS RECEIVED
Letter Name Date Received
Agencies/Individuals
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) July 6, 2017
SFO San Francisco International Airport, Nile Ledbetter July 19, 2017
MR Mina Richardson August 15, 2017
RB Rob Bartoli August 23, 2017
CAL California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) August 25, 2017
CSM County of San Mateo August 28, 2017
RAO Rene Alejandro Ortega, Esq. August 28, 2017
Comments at the Planning Commission Meeting
PC-1 Teresa Benavides August 17, 2017
PC-2 John Tuvo August 17, 2017
PC-3 Commissioner Mark Nagales August 17, 2017
2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT SEIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate all comments on
environmental issues received on the Draft EIR and prepare a written response. The written
response must address the significant environmental issue raised and must be detailed, especially
when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted.
In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written response. However,
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-2
lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project
and do not need to provide all the information requested by commenters, as long as a good faith
effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section15204).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that
focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the
environment and ways in which the project’s significant effects might be avoided or mitigated.
This section also notes that commenters should include an explanation and evidence supporting
their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered
significant in the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a conclusion.
Where changes to the Draft SEIR text result from responding to comments, those changes are
included in the response and demarcated with revision marks: underline for new text, strikeout for
deleted text.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 recommends that where a response to comments results in
revisions to the Draft EIR, those revisions be incorporated as a revision to the Draft EIR or as a
separate section of the Final EIR. Revisions to the Draft SEIR are incorporated as Section 3.0 of this
Final SEIR.
2.4 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the Draft SEIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses
to those comments. Seven comment letters were received—four from public agencies, one from
a public interest group, and two from individuals. In addition, two individuals and one
commissioner raised questions pertinent to the Draft SEIR at the Planning Commission meeting on
August 17. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
Comment letters from government agencies are coded by abbreviations, and each issue
raised in the comment letter is assigned a number (e.g., Comment Letter OPR, comment
1 is referred to as OPR-1).
Comment letters from individuals are coded by letters, and each issue raised in the
comment letter is assigned a number (e.g., Comment Letter MR, comment 1 is referred to
as MR-1).
Comments received at the Planning Commission meeting are coded in the order the
comments were received (e.g., Planning Commission comment 1 is referred to as PC-1).
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-3
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-4
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-5
RESPONSE TO LETTER OPR – GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (OPR)
Response to Comment OPR-1
This letter includes the project’s Notice of Completion (NOC) endorsed by the State
Clearinghouse. The NOC is administrative in nature, and no response is required.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-6
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-7
RESPONSE TO LETTER SFO – SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Response to Comment SFO-1
This comment states that the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, published in 2012, moved the
65 db noise contour in the previous 1996 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. With the move,
no portion of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue (ECR/C) plan area, including the project site,
is located within the 65 db noise contour.
This document is a subsequent environmental impact report to the 2011 ECR/C EIR. A subsequent
EIR analyzes the incremental change that occurs after an EIR is certified to determine if a change
would increase the environmental impacts of a project. Each impact finding summarizes the
conclusions in the original EIR, then analyzes the impact of the updated project.
The original ECR/C EIR was certified in 2011 and used the 65 db noise contour from the 1996
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. At this time, the southwest corner of the ECR/C Area Plan
was within the noise contour. On page 3.9-22, in the summary of the findings of the 2011 ECR/C
EIR, the Draft SEIR states that the plan area is within the noise contour. The impact conclusion for
the subsequent project impact, also on page 3.9-22, states that the project site is not within any
noise impact zones.
Page 3.9-22, paragraphs 3 and 4, are revised as follows:
2011 ECR/C Area Plan Impacts
Under the San Francisco International Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, the 2001 Noise
Exposure Map (NEM) is the most recent federally accepted NEM and is the noise contour map
that C/CAG uses in making its determination of the consistency of a proposed local agency
land use policy action with the plan. A small portion of the Planning Area in the southwest is
was, at the time of publication of the 2011 ECR/C EIR, located between the 2001 CNEL 60 dB
and CNEL 65 dB noise contours (i.e., noise levels are between CNEL 60 dB and CNEL 65 dB).
No noise/land use compatibility standards apply within these noise contours (South San
Francisco 2011b, p. 3.5-10). Therefore, plan implementation would have no impact.
Subsequent Project Impacts
As analyzed in the ECR/C EIR, there are no private airports in the vicinity of the project site. The
project site is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of San Francisco International Airport.
A review of the updated Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San
Francisco International Airport (C/CAG 2012) shows the project site is no longer located
outside of any within the noise impact zones. Therefore, the revised project would continue to
have no impact.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-8
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-9
RESPONSE TO LETTER MR – MINA RICHARDSON
Response to Comment MR-1
The commenter questions the need for a civic center and the process by which decisions were
made about the project. The comment does not focus on the adequacy or scope of the
environmental document.
For more information on Measure W, please see: http://www.ssf.net/government/measure-w.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-10
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-11
RESPONSE TO LETTER RB – ROB BARTOLI
Response to Comment RB-1
This commenter asks why the intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Commercial Avenue was not
analyzed in the transportation impact analysis (TIA), and that it should be studied because the
traffic study indicates intersection delays at Grand Avenue and Mission Road would increase
slightly.
Commercial Avenue is a local street extending east from Chestnut Avenue to Linden Avenue and
west to Oak Avenue. It is a four-way stop intersection at Chestnut Avenue. Unlike Grand Avenue,
it is not a collector street with high traffic volumes. It generally provides local access to the
residential uses on both sides of the street and is not a primary east-west roadway for through-
travel in the project vicinity. The intersection of Chestnut Avenue and Commercial Avenue is
located between two signalized intersections that were studied in the 2011 ECR/C EIR: Intersection
7, Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue and Intersection 9, Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue. The
Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection was not studied in the 2011 ECR/C EIR.
The environmental impact report prepared for the Community Civic Campus Project was a
Subsequent EIR (SEIR). The Draft SEIR specifically considered whether the project would result in
new significant impacts not identified in the 2011 ECR/C EIR, or if the project would cause a
substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The SEIR
analyzed the same intersections that were analyzed in the DEIR and therefore did not include the
Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection. Based on the results of the 2011 ECR/C EIR
traffic analysis and the trip distribution for the proposed project (Figure 7 in the TIA [Appendix TRA
in the DEIR]), which shows that Commercial Avenue would not add trips to the intersection, there
was no compelling reason that the Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection should be
analyzed.
The traffic analysis prepared for the Draft SEIR, which concluded that the traffic volumes
generated by the proposed project would not worsen intersection levels of service at the
signalized intersections (Grand Avenue and Mission Road), even though delays would increase
by a few seconds under both Existing plus Project (2016) and Existing plus Project (2030).
Intersection LOS conditions with or without the project would not require signalization of the
intersection. Because there would be no worsening of conditions at the Grand Avenue and
Mission Road signalized intersections on Chestnut Avenue, it is reasonable to conclude conditions
would not be worsened at the four-way stop at Commercial Avenue with the proposed project,
and no further analysis is necessary.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-12
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-13
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-14
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-15
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-16
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-17
RESPONSE TO LETTER CAL – CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
The first page of this comment letter and a portion of the second page is introductory material
that provides an overview of Caltrans’ role in regional transportation planning, summarizes the
proposed project components, and notes that the City of South San Francisco is responsible for
project mitigation. It also states that the project location is an ABAG-identified Priority
Development Area. The information does not raise any issues regarding the adequacy of the
DSEIR.
Response to Comment CAL-1
The commenter suggests that the City should analyze bicycle and pedestrian level of service
impacts and take measures to increase accessibility of the site for public transportation and transit.
The commenter also recommends the project should include completion of nearby bicycle
facilities along north/south corridors and proposed bicycle facilities along Chestnut Avenue and
proposed intersection improvements at El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue.
The Draft SEIR analyzed bicycle and pedestrian facilities impacts in Impact 3.10.5 on pages 3.10-
33 through 3.10-35 in the Draft SEIR. A description of the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan is included
on page 3.10-21 in the Draft SEIR, which provides the following recommended improvements in
the vicinity of the proposed Community Civic Campus project: sidewalk improvements at El
Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue and Antoinette Lane and Chestnut Avenue; ADA
improvements at El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive, and
Arroyo Drive and Camaritas Avenue; enhancements of linear barriers such as Colma Creek to
improve comfort and safety; and extension of Centennial Way Trail through the Chestnut Avenue
Crossing. The City’s Bicycle Master Plan is described on page 3.10-22. Improvements identified in
the plan in the vicinity of the proposed project are a bicycle lane along Chestnut Avenue and a
bicycle route along Arroyo Drive.
The Draft SEIR concluded (page 3.10-34) that project implementation would not interfere with the
planned pedestrian improvements outlined in the Pedestrian Master Plan or the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue (ECR/C) Area Plan. The project would not create inconsistencies with
adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. The project would increase
the demand on bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. With implementation of the planned
facilities identified in the Bicycle Master Plan, the project site would be served by roadways that
would be safe and accessible for bicyclists.
Currently, sidewalks and pedestrian paths exist along most of the roadways within the ECR/C plan
area. Sidewalks along the east side of El Camino Real provide access to the bus stops on the east
side of El Camino Real and also provide access to the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) station. On the west side of El Camino Real, there are no sidewalks between McLellan Drive
and Arroyo Drive. However, the bus stops on the west side of El Camino Real have pedestrian
crosswalks at signalized intersections that connect to sidewalks. These pedestrian facilities are
critical to the use of transit in the area and would conform to the latest Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) standards.
In addition, a mixed-use path—the Centennial Way Trail—is a trail for pedestrians, shared with
bicyclists, to traverse the ECR/C plan area and to connect the San Bruno and South San Francisco
BART stations. This path would encourage pedestrian use and also provide an alternative to El
Camino Real for pedestrians to travel north–south. The off-street pedestrian pathway provides
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-18
increased safety for pedestrians from vehicles, reduced delays due to fewer roadway crossings,
and wider path widths, thereby improving the pedestrian level of service. Although the project
would potentially generate pedestrian demand, there should be sufficient capacity based on the
existing pedestrian network. Therefore, the project would not interfere with any of the existing or
planned pedestrian facilities.
Currently, several bicycle facilities exist in the project vicinity. There are also several planned and
proposed bicycle facilities within the ECR/C plan area. The Centennial Way Trail, as mentioned
above, would be improved as part of the Project and would facilitate bicycle access throughout
the ECR/C plan area and access to the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART stations. The off-
street bicycle pathway provides increased safety for bicyclists from vehicles, reduced delays due
to fewer roadway crossings, and wider path widths, thereby improving the bicycle level of service.
Although the project would potentially generate bicycle demand, there should be sufficient
capacity based on the existing bicycle network. Additionally, the proposed Grand Boulevard
project would provide Class II bicycle lanes with bicycle detector loops on El Camino Real
between Chestnut Avenue and McLellan Drive. The Draft SEIR (page 3.10-34) concluded that the
project would not interfere with any of the existing or planned bicycle facilities or conflict with
currently adopted bicycle goals or policies. Therefore, the project would not result in any adverse
impacts on bicyclists.
With regard to the commenter’s suggestions about bicycle facility improvements, the proposed
project would not result in any significant impacts requiring mitigation. The City would construct
necessary bicycle facilities to serve the proposed project, consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan.
Recommended improvements beyond those necessary to serve the proposed project or not
included in the Bicycle Master Plan may be constructed as City approvals and funding allow.
Response to Comment CAL-2
The commenter recommends expanding the freeway segment study area beyond the previous
limit to include impacts between the Sneath Lane interchange and the Collins Avenue
interchanges, which are on Interstate 280 (I-280). The commenter did not provide an explanation
why the freeway segment study area should be expanded.
The environmental impact report prepared for the Community Civic Campus Project was a
Subsequent EIR (SEIR). The Draft SEIR specifically considered whether the project would result in
new significant impacts not identified in the 2011 ECR/C EIR, or if the project would cause a
substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impacts. The 2011 ECR/C
EIR studied the freeway segments on I-280 between Avalon Drive and Hickey Boulevard and
concluded that impacts would be less than significant (Draft SEIR pages 3.10-26). The Sneath Lane
and Collins Avenue interchanges were not evaluated in the 2011 TIA. As shown in the calculations
in footnote 1 on page 3.10-26 in the Draft SEIR, the proposed project is expected to generate
significantly fewer project trips in the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily than assumed in the
analysis in the 2011 ECR/C EIR. The proposed project would result in fewer trips and is limited to
changes in only a portion of the ECR Plan Area. Project impacts on freeway segments were
evaluated in Impact 3.10.1 on page 3.10-31 and cumulative Impact 3.10.6 on page 3.10-43 in the
Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR concluded the proposed project would not have a significant effect on
the freeway segments that were analyzed. Because the proposed project would not result in new
or more severe freeway segment impacts for the ones that were analyzed, it is reasonable to
conclude the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact at interchanges
farther from the study area, and no analysis is necessary.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-19
The commenter also requested that 95th percentile queuing analysis be completed for eight
intersections (four on El Camino Real and four at I-280 ramps).
As noted above, the purpose of the Draft SEIR was to identify any new significant or more severe
environmental impacts than those disclosed in the 2011 ECR/C EIR. The 2011 ECR/C EIR did not
identify any significant traffic queuing impacts at the study area intersections. The four
intersections on El Camino Real and the Westborough/I-280 southbound off-ramp were evaluated
in the 2011 ECR/C EIR and in the Draft SEIR. The three remaining I-280 ramp intersections were not
evaluated in either EIR. The results of the intersection LOS analysis for the proposed project show
that the same intersections would be affected as those identified in the 2011 ECR/C EIR, and there
would still be significant impacts at the El Camino Real intersections. Identical to the 2011 ECR/C
EIR conclusion, there would not be a significant impact at the Westborough/I-280 southbound
offramp. A comparison of the LOS and intersection delays in the 2011 ECR/C EIR to the LOS and
intersection delays in the Draft SEIR generally show reductions in delay at the evaluated
intersections. It is reasonable to conclude queue lengths would also decrease at intersections.
Therefore, analysis of intersection queuing, including three intersections not previously considered,
is not necessary.
Response to Comment CAL-3
The commenter notes discrepancies in peak-hour turning movement volumes for intersections 11
(Westborough Boulevard/I-280 southbound ramp) and 12 (Westborough Boulevard/I-280
northbound/Junipero Serra Boulevard in Figure 10 the TIA. Figure 10 shows the peak hour traffic
volumes generated by the proposed project when added to existing (2016) conditions.
The discrepancy in turning movement volumes is due to the I-280 northbound diagonal on-ramp.
Vehicles traveling westbound on Westborough Boulevard traveling I-280 northbound would make
a westbound through movement, not a westbound right-turn movement at Intersection 12. After
traveling through this intersection, the vehicles would make a westbound right turn onto I-280
northbound, hence the decrease in traffic volume at Intersection 11 for the westbound approach.
Response to Comment CAL-4
The commenter states that Table 22 in the TIA (Freeway Segment Analysis for Cumulative [2030]
Plus Project) shows five lanes in each direction for the four I-280 segments analyzed, while there
are only four lanes for all four segments.
The five lanes studied in each direction for the Cumulative (2030) conditions are based on the
City/County Association of Governments for San Mateo County’s Congestion Management Plan
for 2009 travel demand model (see Appendix TRA of the Draft SEIR). The Year 2030 Baseline model
showed five lanes for each direction on Interstate 280 from Hickey Boulevard to Avalon Drive. This
lane configuration was used to generate the future volumes.
Even if the freeway segments were not increased to five lanes in each direction, the project would
not create a significant impact because the project trips would add less than 1 percent of the
freeway capacity (Draft SEIR Table 3.10-10, page 3.10-43).
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-20
Response to Comment CAL-5
The commenter suggests the City use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a way to analyze the
project’s environmental impacts. The City has not adopted a policy or threshold for evaluating
VMT impacts under CEQA.
The state’s Office of Planning and Research has developed draft criteria and guidelines for using
VMT as a metric for evaluating traffic impacts under CEQA. Once the final draft of changes to the
CEQA Guidelines is published, certification and adoption by the Secretary for Resources will be
required before the amendments go into effect. Cities will then have 2 years to implement the new
guidelines. Although the comment mentions the use of a change in VMT of 15 percent, this is not an
adopted threshold for evaluating the significance pursuant to CEQA Until such formal adoption
occurs, the Level of Service (“LOS”) standard used in both the ECR/C EIR and the Draft SEIR is an
appropriate means to examine the proposed project’s potential environmental impacts.
Response to Comment CAL-6
The commenter recommends that the City include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program to reduce VMT, and includes a list of suggested measures.
The City requires TDM for all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more
average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. The City’s
TDM program includes a set of policies, programs, and strategies that relieve congestion, improve
a project’s environmental footprint, and reduce parking demand by using existing resources and
investments more efficiently. Existing resources include local streets and regional highways, public
transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other public infrastructure. TDM does this by:
• Eliminating trips (i.e., working remotely or compressed workweeks)
Shifting inefficient, single-occupant trips to higher efficiency, higher occupancy trips
(transit, shuttles, and carpools)
• Shifting the time of travel to avoid “peak” congestion periods
• Shifting auto trips to active transportation modes (i.e., walking, bicycling)
• Providing technological solutions (i.e., clean air vehicles) to reduce pollution
In addition to policies in the City’s General Plan, the City’s Climate Action Plan reinforces the
need for TDM. The City will require and implement TDM measures for the project in accordance
with zoning regulations, General Plan policies and the CAP, as applicable.
Response to Comment CAL-7
The commenter asks that the City identify project-generated travel demand on public
transportation and estimate the costs of public improvements.
As noted on page 3.10-34 of the Draft SEIR, the project is expected to generate transit ridership.
The current transit services in the area are not running at full capacity; therefore, the additional
passengers would be accommodated by the existing services. In addition, the project-generated
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-21
riders would be spread across the various planned bus routes and Bay Area Rapid Transit system
resulting in a minimal effect on transit capacity. CEQA does not require analysis of the fiscal
impacts of projects.
Response to Comment CAL-8
The commenter advises that projects in the state right-of-way require encroachment permits.
Comment noted.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-22
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-23
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-24
RESPONSE TO LETTER CSM – COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Response to Comment CSM-1
This commenter refers to the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone and states that future projects
would need to demonstrate that the post-development discharge rate would not exceed the
existing rate.
This statement is correct. Future development would comply with the County’s discharge
requirements. Those calculations would be submitted for comment and review as part of the final
design package and will show compliance with county and local regulations.
Response to Comment CSM-2
The commenter recommends that trash management measures be incorporated into the design
elements of the storm drainage system and appurtenances.
The City’s Environmental Compliance Program administers the Pretreatment Program, Pollution
Prevention Program, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program mandated by the State of
California. The programs regulate and control concentrations of wastewater and stormwater
pollutants discharged by industrial, commercial , and residential discharges. Future development
would comply with the City’s programs and state, regional, and local regulations regarding water
quality.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-25
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-26
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-27
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-28
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-29
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-30
RESPONSE TO LETTER RAO – RENE ALEJANDRO ORTEGA, ESQ.
Response to Comment RAO-1
The commenter summarizes concerns in the overall letter. Responses to individual comments are
provided below.
Response to Comment RAO-2
This comment states the legal requirements for general plans and housing elements. It is for
information purposes and does not focus on the adequacy or scope of the environmental
document. No additional response is required.
Response to Comment RAO-3
This comment outlines the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City of South San
Francisco. It is for information purposes and does not focus on the adequacy or scope of the
environmental document. No additional response is required. Please see response to comment
RAO-4 regarding the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements.
Response to Comment RAO-4
The commenter states that the SEIR fails to discuss the project’s inconsistency with the City’s
Housing Element because it would remove planned housing in the Transit Village Area.
The City RHNA requires zoning to permit at least 1,864 units within the 2015-2023 Adopted Housing
Element. The City has zoning in place to construct up to 2,169 units; this allocation is split between
units in the Downtown Area and Transit Village Area, comprised of much of the area identified
within the ECR/C Plan. Zoning in place assumes up to 305 units greater than required by RHNA for
possible construction.
The commenter indicates that the proposed project area removes 331 assumed potential housing
units across Site 3-H and Site 5 from Figure 2 of the adopted Housing Element. This is a correct
assessment. While the adopted Housing Element identified zoning to allow 305 units in excess of
the RHNA requirement, this would leave a gap of 26 units1.
The project includes rezoning of the Municipal Services Building at 33 Arroyo Drive and adjacent
parking lot, an approximately 2.1 acre site. As described on page 2.0-12 of the Draft SEIR, the
western project site would be redesignated to the El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity
land use designation. While construction of a new 7,250-square-foot Fire Station 63 is proposed in
the site’s western corner, the new zoning designation would allow for up to 80 dwelling units per
acre over the remaining1.8 acres (estimate), for a potential of 144 dwelling units permissible under
the new zoning. With this revision, the Housing Opportunity Sites identified within the 2015-2023
Housing Element will have the capacity for 1,982 potential units, with an excess capacity of 118
1 Calculation: 331 housing units minus 305 housing units = 26 housing units.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-31
units above the RHNA requirement for 1,864 units. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the City’s Housing Element because it maintains an adequate overall number of potential housing
units that meets the RHNA obligation and will not result in displacement of assumed units. The
adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element will be updated as part of the General Plan Amendment for
the Project to reflect this change in the identified opportunity sites.
Response to Comment RAO-5
The commenter states that the SEIR fails to adequately address air quality impacts and
greenhouse gas emissions because the people who would have lived in the Transit Village Area
would be forced to commute farther.
The City prepared an SEIR to the ECR/C EIR because the project included changes that required
additional analyses per CEQA Section 15162(b). The SEIR evaluated the air quality impacts and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the change in the ECR/C project by comparing the revised
project to the original ECR/C EIR analyses.
The ECR/C EIR concluded that the ECR/C Area Plan would not be inconsistent with air quality
control measures in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) guidelines specify that the plan-level air quality impact is evaluated by
determining the proposed plan’s VMT increase and comparing it to the project population
increase. The plan would increase population by 20.4 percent in South San Francisco, while VMT
would increase by approximately 16.6 percent. The ECR/C area plan and the City’s General Plan
policies conform to the control strategies included in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Therefore,
the plan would have a less than significant impact on air quality.
The ECR/C EIR also determined that the ECR/C Area Plan would increase commercial
development in the planning area and could result in increased GHG emissions, which would
contribute to global climate change. With emissions reductions under these laws and guidelines,
the project would result in 2035 emissions levels that are slightly higher than baseline levels without
the project, but emissions per service population are lower than the BAAQMD thresholds baseline
rate under the plan. Due to these emissions reductions, emissions in 2020 and 2035 would not
exceed existing levels. Per service population emissions would not exceed 4.6 metric tons of CO2e.
Therefore, the plan would not make a considerable contribution to the impact.
The SEIR determined that the revised project would not conflict with the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean
Air Plan. As shown in Table 3.2-9 (page 3.2-22 of the Draft SEIR), the project’s predicted maximum
daily construction-generated emissions with mitigation would not exceed BAAQMD’s significance
thresholds for air pollutants. Also, as outlined in Table 3.2-10 (page 3.2-23 of the Draft SEIR), the
project’s long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would not
exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. This impact would be less than significant with
mitigation for construction emissions.
The SEIR concluded that the revised project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s service population
efficiency threshold for GHG emission impacts. Table 3.6-7 (page 3.6-19 of the Draft EIR) show that
the project’s annual generation of GHG emissions from construction and operations divided by
the service population would not exceed the BAAQMD efficiency-based threshold. This impact
would be less than significant.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-32
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)(3), a lead agency need not consider a change that is
speculative. The City determined that future air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from any
potential displacement of residents would be speculative and need not be discussed further, in
compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145.
Response to Comment RAO-6
The commenter states that the SEIR does not adequately inform the public and decision-makers
of the environmental effects of the project, since it does not address inconsistencies between the
proposed project and the City’s Housing Element or the potential increase in air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions due to potential displacement of future occupants.
Please see responses to comments RAO-4 and RAO-5 regarding the SEIR’s adequate analyses of
CEQA thresholds.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
2-33
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) MEETING
Response to Comment PC-1
Teresa Benavides stated that she thought the project was a fantastic idea for the city, but she
expressed concerns about the projects being proposed at the Civic Center Campus, the South
San Francisco carwash location, and the existing Municipal Services Building location. She stated
that the Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real intersection is a traffic nightmare and should be
coordinated. She said congestion is a major concern.
As described on page 3.10-28 of the Draft SEIR, the project would cause significant impacts on
the Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real intersection and would require the following mitigation
measure.
MM 3.10.1b The City shall modify the signal timing, as outlined in the TIA, to optimize the
cycle length at the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.10.1b, impacts would be reduced to less than
significant.
Additionally, the Project and any subsequent development will require a City reviewed and
approved traffic control plan and hauling plan for the duration of on-site construction. This plan
will monitor and obligate the on-site contractors to operate consistent with local and state traffic
regulations.
Response to Comment PC-2
John Tuvo asked for specific information regarding the recreation center. He wanted to know
what that facility will include, such as a multipurpose room or other indoor uses. He also stated
that basketball facilities are needed in the city. He asked what will happen to the existing
municipal building. He also questioned whether the project was being funded by bonds.
As described in the Draft SEIR, the joint Library and Recreation Center would be up to 92,000
square feet in size and would contain space for a variety of uses. Preliminary program space is
fully described in Table 2.0-2, Community Civic Campus Elements (page 2.0-11 of the Draft SEIR).
As described on page 2.0-12 of the Draft SEIR, the Municipal Services Building is seismically unsafe
and is unlikely to be retenanted in its current form. It is unclear at this time whether the Municipal
Services Building would be seismically retrofitted or if the building would be demolished to make
way for a new use.
For more information on Measure W, please see: http://www.ssf.net/government/measure-w.
Response to Comment PC-3
Planning Commissioner Mark Nagales asked about the one entrance off Chestnut Avenue. He
wanted to know the traffic implications of having one way in and out of the site. He mentioned
that those four points are busiest. He suggested the need for another entrance/exit on El Camino
Real and opined that the project needs multiple points of entrance.
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
2-34
The project would have a significant impact on the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut
Avenue, but mitigation measure MM 3.10.1b would reduce impacts to less than significant. In
addition, this intersection is already operating at unacceptable levels of service in the existing AM
and cumulative AM and PM peak hours without the project.
The traffic analysis did assume an entry/exit on El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and Chestnut
Avenue. However, to reduce the impact on the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue intersection, it
was recommended that an entry/exit at the intersection of Arroyo Drive and El Camino Real be
incorporated in the final design.
3.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT SEIR
3.0 AMENDMENTS
City of South San Francisco Community Civic Campus Project
October 2017 Final SEIR
3-1
3.1 AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT SEIR
In the revised text below, please note that additions are underlined and deletions are shown in
strikeout.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.0, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In Table 2.0-2, Community Civic Campus Elements (page 2.0-11), it is unclear how much space is
allocated to large and medium-sized classrooms. The square footage presented in the table is per
classroom, not total for classroom space. The corrected Table 2.0-2 is below.
TABLE 2.0-2
COMMUNITY CIVIC CAMPUS ELEMENTS*
Type of Space Purpose and Size
Performance space 100-seat theater
Exhibit space 300 square feet of gallery space
Social space 3,000 square feet of informal social space
Library reading rooms and seating areas for children, teens, and adults
Library collaboration spaces
Program spaces 6,000-square foot social hall, frequent rentals
1,600-square-foot library program room
1,100-square-foot maker space “Tinker Lab”
800-square-foot technology lab
Classrooms Four large classrooms (1,200 square feet each)
Two medium-sized classrooms (1,000 square feet each)
One large dance studio (1,600 square feet)
One medium dance studio (800 square feet)
Retail 300-square-foot café
500-square-foot Friends of the Library store
Civic 3,000-square-foot council chambers, flexible for City programming and rentals
City Council support spaces
Preschool* Three 20-child classrooms
Staff workspace and support space
Secure outdoor play space for 60 children
Staff space Library offices and workstations
Parks and Recreation Department offices and workstations
Shared reception, collaboration, and breakout space
Space for future staff growth
Storage and building support Building and program storage
Building systems, restrooms
Outdoor space Building rooftops: up to 6,000 square feet of usable rooftop area
Events plaza: for day-to-day informal gathering and seating with the ability to host
periodic special events for 350–500 people
3.0 AMENDMENTS
Community Civic Campus Project City of South San Francisco
Final SEIR October 2017
3-2
Type of Space Purpose and Size
Meadow: for casual gathering and passive recreation
Centennial Trail: connection to the existing trail with a bike and running path
Parking Up to 294 spaces, both underground and aboveground
Source: South San Francisco 2017
Notes*: 1.Programming for purposes of CEQA but minor variations possible in final Community Civic Campus Project.
2. Preschool programming is under consideration for purposes of CEQA but may not be included in final Community Civic Campus Project
if alternative locations are identified.
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 3.9, NOISE
Page 3.9-22:
2011 ECR/C Area Plan Impacts
Under the San Francisco International Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, the 2001 Noise
Exposure Map (NEM) is the most recent federally accepted NEM and is the noise contour
map that C/CAG uses in making its determination of the consistency of a proposed local
agency land use policy action with the plan. A small portion of the Planning Area in the
southwest is was, at the time of publication of the 2011 ECR/C EIR, located between the 2001
CNEL 60 dB and CNEL 65 dB noise contours (i.e., noise levels are between CNEL 60 dB and
CNEL 65 dB). No noise/land use compatibility standards apply within these noise contours
(South San Francisco 2011b, p. 3.5-10). Therefore, plan implementation would have no
impact.
Subsequent Project Impacts
As analyzed in the ECR/C EIR, there are no private airports in the vicinity of the project site.
The project site is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of San Francisco International
Airport. A review of the updated Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of
San Francisco International Airport (C/CAG 2012) shows the project site is no longer located
outside of any within the noise impact zones. Therefore, the revised project would continue
to have no impact.