Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHome Depot Project Final Focused EIR 07-26-20061 FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-082032 ~_ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY MAY 2006 `4- cA.~ a~. ?c5- 0035 q- ~'~205- uov3 Dnr~c,r:cuu-r~: ~'ebr~a•-y 3, 200 DATE RECOMMJVOED: J y 1 y Z~ ZOO lft DATE APPROVED: 4J `~ 1y ZI.Q Z oOC~ y ,: FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-082032 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HOME DEPOT PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY MAY 2006 17 PREFACE 17.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides responses to comments submitted by government agencies, organizations and individuals on the Draft EIR for the Home Depot Project. The EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (commencing with Section 21000 of the California Public Resources Code), and the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency for the Project, as defined by CEQA, is the City of South San Francisco. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Final EIR consists of the responses to comments and revisions of those portions of the Draft EIR which have been modified in response to comments received during the public review period on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR includes copies of all written comments received within the 45-day public review period following publication of the Draft EIR, and provides responses to those comments. In some cases, the responses have also resulted in revisions to the Draft EIR, and all such changes are reflected in this document. As required by CEQA, this document addresses those comments received during the public review period that raise environmental issues. The EIR (which is comprised of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR) is intended to be certified as a complete and thorough record of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project by the City of South San Francisco. Certification of the EIR as adequate and complete must take place prior to any formal City action on the proposed Project itself, and EIR certification does not equate to approval of the Project. The EIR is meant to provide an objective, impartial source of information to be used by the lead and responsible agencies, as well as the public, in their consideration of the Project. The basic purposes of CEQA are to: • inform governmental decision makers and the public about the environmental effects of proposed activities; • involve the public in the decision making process; • identify ways that damage to the environment can be avoided or significantly reduced; and HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 17-1 CHAPTER 1 7: PREFACE • prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures.' The analysis in the EIR concentrates on those aspects of the Project that are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The EIR identifies reasonable and feasible measures to mitigate (i.e., reduce or avoid) these effects. The CEQA Guidelines define "significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project ...."Z The determination of significance of potential environmental effects is based, in part, on the discussion of environmental effects which are normally considered to be significant found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This EIR does not address those environmental factors and effects that have already been determined to be "less than significant", except as necessary to establish a background for the Project. The social or economic issues associated with the proposed Project are not evaluated in the EIR, as these are not considered "environmental" effects. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this environmental review document. 17.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR consists of the following major sections: • Preface -outlines the objectives of the EIR and important preliminary information, • Revisions to the Draft EIR -contains revisions to the Draft EIR text, • Comments and Responses -contains letters of comment on the Draft EIR along with responses to these comments. In response to some comments, the text of the Draft EIR has been modified, with changes indicated as described in the previous paragraph. This EIR has been prepared for the City of South San Francisco (the Lead Agency) by Lamphier-Gregory. The information in the EIR was compiled from a variety of sources, including published studies, applicable maps and independent field investigations. Unless otherwise noted, all background documents are available for inspection at the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. 1 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California F.nvironmental~uality Act 5~tatutes and Guidelines, 1995, Section 15002(a). 2 Ibid, Section 15382. PAGE 1 7-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 7: PREFACE 17.3 SCOPE OF THE FINAL EIR An initial evaluation of the proposed Project by City staff indicated that the development of the project site area as proposed might have several potentially significant environmental impacts (see Executive Summary Chapter of the Draft EIR). The potentially significant project related impacts identified relate to those areas that are listed below: • Air Quality • Geology and Soils • Hazardous Materials • Hydrology • Land Use • Noise • Public Services • Transportation and Circulation and • Utilities Each of these topic areas is addressed in the DEIR in its respective chapter. 17.4 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was released on February 1, 2006. It is included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, along with responses to comments on the Notice of Preparation. The Draft EIR was circulated fora 45-day period. During this time, the public and responsible agencies and organizations submitted comments on the sufficiency or adequacy of the EIR in evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project. Responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR have been prepared, and are presented in this document. The Draft EIR, with the responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, comprise the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be presented to the City Council of the City of South San Francisco for review and certification, in accordance with Section 15080 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, certification of the EIR does not constitute approval of the proposed Project. This action only indicates that the record of potential environmental impacts and the available means of reducing or avoiding these impacts provided in the EIR is adequate and complete. Upon certification of the EIR, the City Council will make a separate decision on the approval, denial or modification of the Project as proposed. Certification of the EIR as adequate and complete does not imply that the proposed Project has to be approved. In accordance with the HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 17-3 CHAPTER 1 7: PREFACE requirements of CEQA, where there remain significant environmental effects that cannot be reduced to a level of "less than significant", the Project may be approved only where a statement of overriding considerations of social, economic or other benefit can be made and supported with substantial evidence.3 s California Public Resources Code Section 21080(e) "...substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact. Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment." PAGE 1 7-4 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 18 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR In response to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period, the following revisions in the text of the Draft EIR have been made. Additions are illustrated as underlined text, while deletions are illustrated as ~: On DEIR pages 2-17 to 2-22, the Executive Summary table has been revised to indicate the resulting level of significance after the implementation of mitigation measures for each analyzed intersection in Impacts 11-5, 11-6, and 11-9, and included at the end of this chapter. On DEIR pages 2-22 and 11-78, Mitigation Measure 11-10 has been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 11-10 Left Turn Lane Revise the Project site plan layout in the vicinity of the central driveway in order to widen Dubuque Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 75 and preferably 100 feet long. Sight Lines • Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway. • Dubuque Avenue shall be posted in both directions with a maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour in the vicinity of Home Depot. • Prior to any of the Home Depot driveway improvements along Dubuque Avenue the owner shall have a sight line study~repared by a qualified Traffic Engineer acceptable to the City Engineer. The study shall analyze the potential for left turns out of the northerly Home Depot driveway. The study and recommendations shall be subject to the review and approval of the South San Francisco City Engineer. • On-street parking along the Project's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage shall be prohibited. • Prior to 2010, at the owner's expense, an intersection control study shall be conducted by a qualified Traffic En~inee~cceptable to the South San Francisco City Engineer. The study shall analyze the need for intersection control at the Project's central driveway to minimize traffic conflicts and shall be subject to the review and approval of the South San Francisco Cite Engineer. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-1 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR « > ~a~e~ee-~iet~ These measures would reduce the Project's impact to aless-than-signif2cant level. On DEIR page 7-9, the following underlined text has been added as follows: SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. Amendments to the program as instituted by the RWQCB in February 2003 included provision C.3 which strengthens the New Development and Construction component of the STOPPP Stormwater Management Plan (<SMP, component requirements by identifying and implementing anbro~riate site design, source control and Stormwater treatment measures. On DEIR page 7-12, the following underlined text has been added as follows: Mitigation Measure 7-1b Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the hydraulic analysis described in Mitigation Measure 7-1a cannot show that the existing storm drain has capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity. All runoff from the site must be routed to the Oyster Point Boulevard outlet and must not be directed to the San Mateo County Flood Control District's flood control channel ~Colma Creek watershed), or must be infiltrated at the project site. Methods such as on-site storm water detention, storm drain line upgrades, and an infiltration area shall be incorporated into the project design. Mitigation Measure 7-2b requires incorporation of a vegetated Swale and infiltration area for treatment of storm water runoff from parking lot areas. Any drainage changes shall be reviewed and approved by the Ciry of South San Francisco and the San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to tentative map approval. PAGE 18-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR On DEIR page 11-2, the following text has been revised as follows: Southbound U.S. 101 traffic accesses the Project area via a stop sign controlled off-ramp connecting to Dubuque Avenue along the Home Depot site frontage (soon to be signalized). On DEIR page 11-2, the following text has been deleted as follows: ,Bayshore Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its intersection with the U.S.101 southbound off-ramp (scissors ramp). Improvements are underway to make Bayshore Boulevard afour-lane roadway On DEIR pages 11-61 and 11-65, Figures 11-13 and 11-15 have been revised to show proper PM peak hour volumes at the project driveways. Updated versions of Figures 11-13 and 11-15 are included at the end of this chapter. In response to Comment E-1 from the California Department of Transportation, project-related turning movement volumes are provided in Figure A (AM Peak Hour) and Figure B (PM Peak Hour), included at the end of this chapter. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-3 This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-4 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Transportation and Circulation Impact 11-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The proposed Project would generate 100 net new trips more than existing site uses during the AM and PM peak hours (± 185 more trips during the AM peak hour and ±350 more trips during the PM peak hour than the existing Levitz furniture operation). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) Projected to be generated by the development. Mitigation Measure 11-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. The Project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan consistent with the Ciry of South San Francisco "Coning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management and acceptable to San Mateo City County Association of Governments (C/CAG). The TDM plan is required to be on-going for the life of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix B Table 5 outlines TDM plan measures that can generate trip credits to offset the ± 185 net new AM peak hour trips and ±350 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. Since the majority of vehicles associated with Home Depot will be retail customers and not employees (and not influenced by typical TDM measures), the Project applicant and C/CAG will need to meet and develop a program agreeable to the City, C/CAG and Home Depot. Less than Significant This would be a significant impact. Impact 11-2: Year 2006 Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that all but one analyzed intersection would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the proposed Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection, PM peak hour Project traffic would degrade operation from LOSE to LOS P and increase volumes by more than two percent (4.3%). Implementation of a TDM plan will reduce the Project's impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 11-2: None. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco Engineering Division to improve operation to Base Case Conditions or better. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable This would be a significant impact. Impact 11-5: Year 2006 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed Project would result in significant queuing impacts during the PM peak traffic hour in 2006 at the 50~~~ Percentile Queue. 50~~~ PercentIle Queue PM PEAK HOUR 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Mitigation Measure 11-5A: 50~ Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane will reduce westbound through queuing demand to 195 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. Therefore, this impact will be reduced to a level less-than- Less than Significant The Ouster Point westbound HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-5 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR approach through lanes would significant level. receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque unacceptable Base Case queuing. Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp There are no physical improvements 2) Oyster Point considered feasible at this intersection by Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound City of South San Francisco Engineering On-Ramp Division staff to reduce queuing to the Base Case conditions. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in the left turn lane. Acceptable Base Case queuing in the combined left/through lane would also be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of Project traffic. These would be signifzcant impacts. 95'h Percentile Queue Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the Project would result in significant queuing impacts during the AM and PM peak traffic hour in 2006 at the 95~h Percentile Queue. AM PEAI{ HOUR 1) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On- Ramp. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (9.6%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. PM PEAK HOUR 2) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation 11-SB: 95'h Percentile Queue 1) Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Proposed restriping of the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (as required of the Bay West Cove development) to provide one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane would reduce westbound through queuing demand to 225 feet, less than the available 255 feet of storage. In addition, the 95th percentile queuing in the westbound left turn lane would be reduced to 80 feet, which is the planned available storage length. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Oyster Point westbound approach through lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Also, acceptable Base Case queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane would be increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. Significant and Unavoidable Less than Significant PAGE 18-6 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAfT EIR 3) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive more than a two percent increase in traffic (19.5%) with unacceptable Base Case queuing in both lanes. These would be signifzcant impacts. 2) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce 9ueuing to Base Case conditions. Impact would remain signiftcant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 11-6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Mitigation Measure 11-6 Service Impacts. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 show that Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities all but three analyzed intersections would maintain Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Less than acceptable operation during AM or PM peak hour Significant conditions with the proposed Project. At the Boulevard Bayshore/U.S.101 Southbound Hook o Provide a proportionate share Ramps/Terrabay access intersection, PM peak contribution to the same mitigations hour operation would remain LOS P, but volumes required of the Terrabay Phase III would increase by less than two percent (1.1%). At development. the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp o Re-stripe the northbound Airport intersection, AM peak hour operation would Boulevard approach to provide a second left turn lane. remain LOS F, but volumes would increase less than two percent. However, during the PM peak o Reconfigure the eastbound Sister Cities hour operation would also remain LOS P, but Boulevard approach to provide two volumes would increase by more than two percent left turn lanes, an exclusive through (2.1%), resulting in a significant impact at this lane and a shared through/right turn location. Project traffic would also produce a lane. Improvements to the eastbound significant impact during the PM peak hour at the approach should also provide Bayshore Boulevard/ Sister Cities adjustments to the north curb line of Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Sister Cities Boulevard, if needed, to Boulevard intersection. Operation would remain allow safe turn movements, which will be conducted by Project drivers. LOS P and volumes would increase by more than two percent (2.6%). Resultant Operation PM Peak Hour LOS D-51.8 seconds These would be SZgnzficant impacts. vehicle delay The impact would be reduced to a less-tban- signi~cant level. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Significant and Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Unavoidable • There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by Ciry of South San Francisco Engineering Division staff to improve operation to the Base Case conditions or better. The impact would remain signiftcant and unavoidable. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-7 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Impact Il-9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. Tables 11-7 and 11-8 show that the proposed project would result in significant 50th percentile queuing impacts at two intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. Tables 11-9 and 11-10 show that the proposed project would result in significant 95th percentile queuing impacts at three intersections during the AM and/or PM peak traffic hours in 2020. 50'h Percentile Queue AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp Mitigation Measure 11-9A: 50'h Percentile Queue Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Significant and Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Unavoidable Boulevard (same improvements as for level of service) • Provide two ]eft turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. • Stripe a second left rum lane on the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. These measures will not reduce unacceptable westbound through and left turn lane queuing to acceptable levels. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane would • There are no physical improvements receive a ±4.4% increase in traffic considered feasible at this intersection with unacceptable Base Case by City of South San Francisco queuing. Engineering Division staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to the Base Case conditions. PM PEAK HOUR Impacts would remain signfftcant and unavoidable. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Mitigation Measure 11-9B: 95'h Percentile Queue Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities intersection. Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (same improvements as for level of • The Oyster Point Boulevard service) westbound approach through lanes would receive a ± 4% increase in • Reconfigure the eastbound Sister traffic with unacceptable Base Case Cities Boulevard approach to provide queuing. two left turn lanes, an exclusive • The Oyster Point Boulevard through lane and a combined westbound approach left turn lane through/right turn lane. would receive a ±4.1% increase in • Stripe a second left turn lane on the traffic with unacceptable Base Case northbound Airport Boulevard queuing. approach. These measures would not reduce unacceptable Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque westbound through and left turn lane queuing to Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- acceptable levels. Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn/through lanes would receive a ± 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. 95'h Percentile Queue AM PEAK HOUR Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp • There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by Ciri~ of South San Francisco staff to reduce project queuing impacts to Base Case conditions. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable PAGE 18-8 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn lane and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a 7.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a 4.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. In addition, the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have a demand increased beyond the available storage with the addition of project traffic. PM PEAK HOUR Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through lanes would receive a ± 4% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±4.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. • The Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane would receive a ±8.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S.101 Northbound On- Ramp • The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn and combined through/left turn lanes would receive a ± 6.2% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Terrabay North Less than Bayshore Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Significant Ramps/Terrabay Access • Provide a fair share contribution toward lengthening the Bayshore Boulevard southbound approach left turn lane (from 350 to 550 feet) in conjunction with Terrabay providing an additional lane on the eastbound intersection approach. The impact at this intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-9 CHAPTER 18: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Access • The off-ramp lanes would receive a 2.1% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. These would be significant impacts. Impact 11-10: Project Access Impacts. The proposed Project would have three driveway connections to Dubuque Avenue. The north and central driveway connections would be in the same locations as driveways now serving Levitz furniture. The Home Depot southerly driveway would be in the same location as Levitz's most southerly driveway. The existing Levitz fourth driveway connection to Dubuque Avenue just north of the Levitz southerly driveway would be eliminated. Speeds along Dubuque Avenue adjacent to the Project site range from 35 to 45 miles per hour. The north Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, allowing one inbound and outbound lane. The existing ±150-foot-long left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this intersection would be maintained. It would provide storage for about six to seven autos. Dubuque Avenue has two northbound through lanes and one southbound through lane at this location. However, on-street parking is now allowed adjacent to the Home Depot site between the north and central driveways. If this parking is occupied, northbound flow is limited to a single lane. The central Home Depot driveway would be 30 feet wide, also allowing one wide inbound and outbound lane. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to this intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide just south of this driveway and widens to 38 feet just north of this driveway. The southerly Home Depot driveway would be 57 feet wide, allowing adequate room for truck turn movements. No left turn lane is proposed on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to the intersection. Dubuque Avenue is 26 feet wide in the vicinity of this driveway. Mitigation Measure 11-10: Less than Significant Left Tum Lane Revise the Project site plan layout in the vicinity of the central driveway in order to widen Dubuque Avenue sufficiently to provide a southbound left turn lane at least 75 and preferably 100 feet long. Sight Lines Provide low height landscaping along the site's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage that will allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway. Dubuque Avenue shall be posted in both directions with a maximum speed limit of 35 miles per hour in the vicinity of Home Depot. Prior to any of the Home Depot driveway improvements along Dubuque Avenue the owner shall have a sight line study prepared by a qualified Traffic Engineer acceptable to the City Engineer. The study shall analyze the potential for left turns out of the northerly Home Depot driveway. The study and recommendations shall be subject to the review and approval of the South San Francisco City Engineer. On-street parking along the Project's entire Dubuque Avenue frontage shall be prohibited. Prior to 2010, at the owner's expense, an intersection control study shall be conducted by a qualified Traffic Engineer acceptable to the South San Francisco City Engineer. The study shall analyze the need for intersection control at the Project's central driveway to minimize traffic conflicts and shall be subject to the review and approval of the South San Francisco City Engineer. These measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level that is less than significant. Intersection Chauueli~atiou Derigrz Guide, Transportation Research Board Report 279, November 1985-see Appendix B. z American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials. PAGE 18-10 HOME DEPOT PROJECT DRAFT FOCUSED EIR 7238 456 350 L 30 ~ 901 ~, 4 ,` soa Z 284 ~ ~ 9768 275 1, NOT TO SCALE N 35D 395 219 ~ ~ ~ Sister Cities Blvd ~ L 189 ~ 903 220 ~ 6945 ~ 8D6D yster Point Blvd '~ 1302 ~-- ns '` 1272 85 1' ~l * (- 255 ~' ~ ~ ~- 403 ---~ 130180 273 2400 ~. 53615 179 60 -i. '~ 0 219 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ U 235 113 Z 127 ~ ~ ~ 7 555 ~' ~ ~ (~ 146 1 316 0 3 5 6 m 0 129 Z '~ 46 202 40 ,~3 Home v r- Depot ¢ 2g5 19 x544 ~ Project ~, 8744 $ilte 223 2 0 '~. 1 1 1 01 ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ w 3 296 187 431I0 237 .~- 345 688 i ~- r 686 198 ,' Gran Ave 99 -- 75 465 122 145 -~, L 93 27 r 1895 12 ~ L,r Gran 72 ~ 386 Figure 1'1-'t3 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Year 2005 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes `- This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-12 '~- 35 58 546 440 ~-- 141 ~ ~ 901 ,r Terrabay Ph 3 Access 59 ,' * ~- 228--- 112 ~, 543 364 49 1510 63D Terrabay '~ ~' Ph 3 Access B3 232 "i. 309 844 ~ 23 1719 m c~ 7erratray ~ ~ _ .°c Ph 3 Access 275 "~. ro 92~ 576 44 ~-- 6221 Skter Cittes Btvdt ~ 255 90~ ~ ~'(' 269 ~ 135 2 561 -- 282 ~ 65 ~, m 560 505 541 .~ 1 ~. 45~~ 130 --- 100 ~. 233 ~-- 404 ,` 801 G~r~1 95 480 101 NOT TO 3C~Lf N '~- 2125 .~ '~. 200 ,}~ r_~~ '~ 5 1801 290 5 ~- ,~ 13 1050..x' 5 --i 310 432 0 215"i Home Depot Project Site ~-- i175 Po1nt Blvd '` 1710 638 ~' 284 --- 903 ~ 384 366 r ~ 115 r ~ 239D 40 145 ~ `y Gran 1097 92 ~ ~~ 660 393 113 'x.127 " 7 (~ j 6 6 5 360 4p '~ 46 t 4 i 23 , ~ f ~ 575 17 381 2 p '~ i '` 1 ~ 4 593 Figure 9i-75 I Year 2020 Base Case + Project CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP pM Peak Hour Volumes This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-14 8 .~ ~, ~ 1107 TD SCALE Terrabay 15 Ph 3 Access 2 N 23 Terrabay Ph 3 Access 2 b 23 _~ ~ 0 Terrabay ~ ~ 2 Ph 3 Access ~ '~-- 2 23 't- 17 5lsterCitles6Jvd ~ '` 3 DysterPolntBlvd '` 5 23 -- ~ ~ (-3j --- ~ (• 2 3 52 ~ 22 1 3 57 57 '~ 55 (~ ,~" 3 fl a 26 ~' 26 4B m o 4 4 't.-16 ~ .~ i D Home ~ Depot Q 15 Project ~ Site ~ ,~ 1 1 01 t.° ,` 1 1~ 1 i n u n R_ 5 ,~ 1 3 i i ~ ~ ? Grand Ave 2 '~- 7 15 ~ Grand Ave R 7 -- f 4 ~ Negative numbers reflect vehicles attracted from background traffic Home qe of E1R CRANE TRANSPORTA71ON GROUP Figure A Home Depot Trip Generation AM Peak Hour This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-16 1a ,. ~ 27 101 NOT TO SCALE Terrabay Ph 3 Access 1 N 45 ~ t Terrabay Ph 3 Access 4 ai 45 ~ Terrabay ~ o H 4 Ph 3 Access ~ t 4 '~ {-4) ~ 45 f-- 48 ~- (-3} Slster Cifles Blvd 4 'r 1 U Oyster Paint Blvd ~ 12 42 -~ ~ 96 ~' ~ t 9 66574 ('z} 110 ~ 1 113 L 127 ~ r 7 ~ ~ b 45 ~' 47 127 g m 40 '~- 46 ~ ~ 4 ,~ 23 Horne Depot Q ~ Project 19 Site ~ ,~ 1 101 ~Q ~ 1 1 a a 4 ~" 9 4 ~ {_5) H ,~ 2 27 ~ W Grand Ave 2 ~ ~- 14 " 17 - , j 6 Grand Ave H 11 ---- ~- 4 * Negative numbers reflect vehicles atEracted from backgro und traffic Home De of EIR Figure B Home Depot Trip Generation CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP pM Peak Hour This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 18-18 19 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 19.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter contains comments on the Draft EIR for the Home Depot Project. Letters received during the 45-day public review period are listed in Section 3.2. Each letter is marked to identify distinct comments on the Draft EIR. Responses to these comments are provided following each letter. Throughout the responses to comments, where a specific comment has been addressed previously, a reference to the response in which the comment is discussed may be provided in order to reduce repetition. As noted in the PREFACE, in several instances responding to a comment received on the Draft EIR has resulted in a revision to the text of the Draft EIR. In other cases, the information provided in the responses is deemed adequate in itself, and modification of the Draft EIR text was not necessary. Responses presented in this document focus only on those comments which bear a direct relationship to the Draft EIR and raise environmental issues, as required under CEQA. While other comments that are not directly related to the Draft EIR or do not raise environmental issues are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers, it is beyond the scope of the Final EIR to provide responses to Project merits. The letters received on the Draft EIR are listed below. Each letter has been marked to identify each specific comment in the right-hand margin (i.e., A-1, B-2, etc.). Following each letter, the response to each identified comment in that letter is presented sequentially (for example, the first comment on the Draft EIR identified in LETTER A is identified as A-1 in the right-hand margin of the letter, and the corresponding response immediately following LETTER A is coded as RESPONSE A-1). In order to avoid repetition, where individual comments focus on the same issues raised in a previous comment or comments, the response to those comments may make reference to a previous response or responses. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-1 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 19.2 LIST OF LETTERS The following comment letters were received by the City of South San Francisco during the Focused EIR's public review period: A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, March 17, 2006. B. County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, March 3, 2006. C. California Department of Transportation, District 4, March 16, 2006. D. Cassidy Shimko Dawson Kawakami, March 17, 2006. E. California Department of Transportation, District 4, March 30, 2006. F. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, April 13, 2006. G. Town of Colma, March 14, 2006. PAGE 19-2 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR ..,-. -- -~..._. -.~.. .. ..~ ... -. ... ~ii.,.,.~~v ulvi o.~V-oca-oo~~ P.C a STATE OF CALIFORNIA' ,r ~' ' Governor's Office of Planning and IZesearck o -,~~ . State Clearinghouse and Plaxlning Unit Arnold Sean waist; 5chwarzanegger ~ DIractor t7ovemor March I7, 2406 ' Steve Carlson e ~ r City of South San Francisco ~ - 315 Maple Avenue - SoulhSanFrancisco, CA 94080 .. Subject: Home DepotPraject scx~: Zoosoazo3z - - De~rSieveCarlson: --- The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Drag BIR. bo selected state agencies for review. On We enclosed DocumentDetails Repartplease note that the Clearinghouse has Listed fbe state agencies that reviewed .your document. The review period closed on March 16, 2006, and the conmsents tiom the rosponding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State CIearinghouse immediately, Please refer to the project's ten-digit Staff Clearinghouse member in future . correspondvnca so tha# we may respond prorrtpfly. ' Please ante that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: • •."A resporrsible or other public~agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of tha agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency, Those comments shall be supported by 6peC:1tIC dOCtrmenlatiOrl.° These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final enviromnental document. Should you need . more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, vve recommend that you contact the ~mmPn(~ agency drrectly. ~ . This letter aclmowledges that you have complied with tlr,e Slate Clearinghouse review requirements for draft envizonmental documents, pursuant to the California Enviroruneatal Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (9111) 445-0613 if you have any questioins regarding the environmeatal review process. Sincerely, ~ •- ~~~~ • ~~: .Terry Rob Director, State. Clearinghouse Enclosures ; .. . ~` • cc: Resources Agency • A=1 140D TEN'T'H BTREET PA. B4% 9pa4 3A13ItA1ViENTO, OALIFORNIA Bb97~3044 T1;L (818)446-0$19 FAX (918} 929-3018 wavw.opr.cn.gov --- - -- - - ___ ..~~ ~.,,... r.... Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base st:l~ 2oosoazo3z Protect Tile Home Depot Project Lead Ageney South San frandsco, Gty of Type E1R Draft ElR Descr/pdon The proposed prvjed would Mvolva the demolition of an existing 156,837 square foot Levitz Fumlture building and the consfructtan of a 101,272 square fool Homs Depot home Improvementvuarehause, an adjoining 24,522 square toot Garclen Center, and atwo-level parking structure providing 426 parking spaces. Lead Agency Contact Name Sieve Carlson Agency qty ~ South San Francisco Phnna (650) 877-8535 email Address 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco ' Project Location County San Mateo Clry Raglan Fax Stale CA ZIp. 9AQt30 Cross Streets 900 Dubuque Avenue, south of Oyster Point Boulevard Parcel No. 015-021-110 Township Range Section Base Proxirreity to: Highways 82 Algovris SF4 Ra1M~ays UPRR Waterways San Francisco Bay Schools Spruce ES, Parkway Heights MS, Martin E5; &iebene ES, Hillside Land Use Planned Commercial (P-C)1 Business Commercial Project issues Air Quality; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood PtainlFfooding; GeologlclSefamic; Lenduse; Noise; PopuiatlonMousing Balance; Public Services; RecreationlParks; Sewer Capacity; Soii ErosioNCompactbnlGrading; Solid Waste; ToxfclHazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality, Water Supply, Wetland/Riparian Revlewlna Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Departrnent of Parks and Agencies Recreation; iVative American Heritage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board; Department of Fish end Geme, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrdns, District A; Coltrane, D[vislon of Aeronautics; Department of Toxic Substances Control Date Received 01/3i/200(3 Start of Review 01/31!2008 End ofRevlew 03116!2006 Note: 9fanks to data fields result from Insufficient information provided by toad agency. CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter A: State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research, March 17, 2006. Response to Comment A-1: Comment noted. A letter from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 4 was received on March 16, 2006, and was the only comment letter received from a state agency within the state review period. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-5 This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-6 rear tY cuuo ti:uirn'i ~.i i ~ ur mar r~rnnii~~o ulvi OJL!-OGJ-OOJJ N.G I3epartment off IPubtic ~Vorl~s g!Y`~L~S ~` ~' MAR 0 8 2~6 BDARD OF SUPERV150RS MARK CHURCH RICHARD 5. CORDON JERRY HILt ROSE JAC08S GIBSON ADRIENNE TISSIER NEIL R. CULLEN ~iaearoR 555 COUh7Y CENTER. 5*~~ FLOOR • REDWOOD CITY -CALIFORNIA 94063-'1665 • PM ONE (850) 363-4100 -FAX (850) 361-8220 PLYING ~E~. March 3, 2006 Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear i1/Ir. Carlson: Letter B Subject: 1llotice of Availability of Public Review for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Home Depot Development, City of South San Frsu>tcisco (APN 015-021-] 10) , Thanlt you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the subj ect project. The San Mateo County Deparinient of Public Vilarks, in its capacity as the Administrator of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District) which includes the Colma Creek Flood Control Zane (Zone), has reviewed the document and offers the following comments: Since the Home Depot project site is located outside of the Zone bow~daries and properties autside of the Zone boundaries do not contribute financially to the Zone's revenue and maintenance of the District's facilities, existing and future storn~ water runoff from this site roust not be directed into the District's flaad control channel (Coltna Creek). Any revised storm drain plans (Mitigation _ 1Vleasure 7-lb) must include routing of the runoff to the Oyster Point Boulevard outlet and must be submitted to the District for review. Page 7-6 of the DEIIZ presented a discussion on NPDES Phase I storm wafer program regulations and requirements, and page 7-9 briefly discussed the Sabi Mateo Countywide Stormvt~ater Pollution Prevention Program (5TOPPP). However, requirements of the New Development and Redevelopment Performance Standards (Provision C3) of the STOPPP Petntit amended by the California Regional Wa[er Quality Control Board in Febn>iary 2003 were not discussed. B-1 B-2 ..-~ - - ---- -----.... __. _. __. _......_.... .,_._ ...... ..~ ... .......... r... Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, City of South San Francisco, Planning Division Subject:' Notice of Availability o[ Public Review fur the Draft Environmental impact Report (DEIR} for the Proposed Home Depot Development, City of South San FraQCi5C0 {APN U15-021-110) March 3, ?006 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mark Chow at (65D) 599-1489, or myself ai (650) 594-1417. Very truly yours, Ann M. Stillman, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Cantro]-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:mmy F:tUSERSIADMINICIT[L•S1SSFlZ0D6190D Dubuque Home Depol - DEIR Reviaw.doc GdUSERSIUTILITY1Colmn Creek FCD1WDItDI(tcvic•+v Extemai I'rojectu0051400 Dubuque Home Depot - DEIR Revicw.doc rile No: F-149 (9I~ - cc: Mark Chow, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter B: County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, March 3, 2006. Response to Comment B-1: The County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, San Mateo County Flood Control District will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the Revised Flood Control Plan. However, requirements of other agencies including the City of South San Francisco Public Works include the use of vegetated swales and infiltration areas for treatment of storm water runoff from parking lot areas. Mitigation Measure 7-1b will be revised as follows. Mitigation Measure 7-1b Revised Storm Drain Plan. If the hydraulic analysis described in Mitigation Measure 7-1a cannot show that the existing storm drain has capacity for Project flows, the applicant shall submit a Revised Storm Drain Plan for the Project. The revised plan shall include drawings of the new proposed system and shall include calculations of the new system capacity. All runoff from the site must be routed to the Oyster Point Boulevard outlet and must not be directed to the San Mateo County Flood Control District's flood control channel (Colma Creek watershed, or must be infiltrated at the project site. Methods such as on-site storm water detention, storm drain line upgrades, and an infiltration area shall be incorporated into the project design. Mitigation Measure 7-2b requires incorporation of a vegetated Swale and infiltration area for treatment of storm water runoff from parking lot areas. Any drainage changes shall be reviewed and approved by the City of South San Francisco and the San Mateo County Flood Control District prior to tentative map approval. Response to Comment B-2: The section describing the STOPPP shall be amended as follows to include information on the C.3 requirements. SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE $TORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM To comply with the CWA, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and town in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. Amendments to the program as instituted the RWQCB in February 2003 included brovision C.3 which strengthens the New Development and Construction component of the STOPPP Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) component requirements by identifying and implementingappropriate site design, source control, and Stormwater treatment measures. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-9 This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-10 1-ICI' 1 o cuuo G. Tor 1.1 03/]6/2006 13:34 V 1 1 1 Ur JJr r Lnlll 1 1 IIU L 1 Y 1 ~JV -OGJ-OOJJ 51021365559 CALTRAMS . G PAGE D1 DEPARTIvaENT OJF TRANS~R'D'ATION 1 t l CRAM) AVENUE P. O. $dX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-Oti6l? ~'HDNE (510) 286-5505 1FA.}[ (S10) 286-5559 F-cr~ourpnwrr! TTY (600) 735-2829 e e r Be e+~AfY SQirtenf! March 16, 2006 5Mt01915 Mr. Steve Carlson SCHli2005082U32 City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, C,A 94081} Dear Mr. Carlson: HOME DEPQT-DRAFT ENV>[RONMlItNTAL 1~,~G`T RESORT Thank you for including the California Department of Transporratlon (Department) in the environmental review process For the Home Depot project. The fallowing cammeztts-ate based on the Draft Etlvirotlmental Impact Report (~EIR~; additional comments will be forthcoming ptnding final lrview of the DEIR. Since the Tra~o Study Technical Appendices were received ot11y t11is week, highway operations comments have been delayed, please note that since Caltrans review requires supporting data contained in Traffic Study Technical Appendices, these sktould be sent along with the environmental document. As lead agency, the City of South San Francisco is respansiblt for all project mitigation, including any needed impnavennenis to state highways. The project's fair sh8re contribution, financing, scheduling, impletnentadon responsibilities and Lead agency monitoring ahoul~ be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures, T}te project's specific vaffic mitigation fee should be identified in both the Traffic Ittlpact Swdy and the DEIR. Required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Orcupancy. An encroachment permit is required for work in the State Right of Way (ROVi~, and the De will not issue a permit until our concerns anti adequately addressed. Theneforc, we stra o~ngly recommend that the City work with bath the applicant and the- Department to enswe that our cancems are resolved during tht CEQA process, and in any case prior to submittal of a pernvt application. Further comments wJlt be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this Letter for rrlore inforrrtation regarding encroachnxtrt pernnits. Travel Denratrd FartrastYng 1 • Project trip generation estimates far approved development in the City are lower than the average rates cited in the lnstlture of Transportation Engineers Trip Generatlnn Manual, 7r8 Edition. These should be reviewed and explained. page 11-36, Table 1 ]-11, DEIR,. C-1 'CIIl-ryy,~ Orrprover A706111ry stroll Caijfon~io" ---~ - - ----- -- ~ -- .. _ _ .. _. ~~. ~........... .. ~ . _ ..~~ ~~.. ..~~.. r. 03/16/2886 13:34 5102865559 M[.StoveGq[ao CALTRANS PAGC Mar=b 16,1000 Pam 2 B2 2. Figttrc ! 1-15 should repnscnt the net change of 2020 trip generation, 'That is, the trips in and aut should match those of Table 11-15C rather than Tabl 1 C-2 e l-258. Page 11.5?, D)rIK. 3. Review the percentage of AM peak hour taps in and out shown in Fable I1-ISA. These should be much higher than the values shown Pa e 11 57 D . g - , EIR, C _3 Cu>tufnl Resources Pursuant to CEQA Section 15o,54s ana R-bl;c Resources Code 5ectlon 5024.5, any ground- disturbing work in State ROW must be preceded b a y n archaeolagical tecard search at the Northwest fnfarmation Center before azt encroachment ('_4 permit can be issued. E'ntroachment Permit Wark that encroaches Ontp the Stan: ROW ret~uireB en R1Cr0aChmettt ~CttAit thSr 13 i66Ued by t~IC Dcparttnent. To apply, a completed o h nc~roac merft permit application, environmental docunaentatian, and five (5) sets of plans ,rlt:arly indicating Stela ROW dd - a ress below. Traff must be submitted to the ic-ttlatetf mitigation measures should be incorporated info the caost;ucti plans during the eneroa eh C_5 ~ on mcnt p~rxnit process. Sec the website ]ink below for more information. http://www.dot.ea.gov/hq/Vaffops/developservlpermitsl Seats Nozzari, District Office Chief Office of Pe°ts Califvrnie DbT, District 4 P.O. Bost 236b0 Oak]and, CA 94523-Ob60 Please tees ftte to ca11 or email Patricia Iv[aurict: of my staff at (510) 622-1644 ar at ' 'a au " e dots . av with any question + s t egarding this letter. Sincerely, ~ TIMOTHY SAg1~ District Branch Chie! 3GR/CEQq ~~ 1VXs. Terry Roberts, State Cleaninghause Mr. David Tait, The Tait Group '~Cateroru insprp y~~ awb;tity ot*nu t+~~(o>•efa" CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter C: California Department of Transportation District 4, March 16, 2006. Response to Comment C-1: Trip generation presented in Table 11-11 of the DEIR for approved developments east of the U.S.101 freeway should not match what would be projected using ITE "average" trip rates. All developments in this area have "City" and County Congestion Management Agency (C/CAG) Transportation Demand Management plans which must be implemented to reduce peak hour trip generation. All business will be monitored (and penalties assessed, if required) in order to ensure compliance with the TDM programs. Response to Comment C-2: PM peak hour volumes shown at the project driveways in Figures 11-13 and 11-15 have been revised to reflect proper trip generation levels. Volumes change by about 10 percent. This results in no changes to project impacts or required mitigations at any location. Also, volumes at all intersections away from the project frontage are correct. Response to Comment C-3: Home Depot trip generation projections were obtained from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Land use code 862, "Home Improvement Superstore" was utilized. AM peak hour average trip rates used in the EIR are directly from the publication (page 1601) and have then been increased by 2.5 percent to provide a conservative analysis. Response to Comment C-4: Comment noted. Response to Comment C-5: Comment noted. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-13 This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-14 110/ •! LtJUV T. 2JF 11 V1/ 1 U~- JJI- f-L~-11 Ill l~u ul vl OJU-OGJ-OOJJ A P N O F E~ S t D N n L C O R P Q g a ~ l 0 II C A S S I D Y S H I M K O D A W S O N KAWAKAMI March 17, 2006 Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery 144r. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Initial Study for Home Depot Protect, Apylication No PDS-D035 Dear Mr. Carlson: D On behalf of our client, Home Depot, we wish to compliment the City of South San Francisco on a thorough and accurate Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for the construction of the proposed Home Depot store (the "Project's to be located at 900 Dubuque Avenue in the City of South San Francisco. While we believe that the Draft E1R is legally sufficient under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'~, we subnut the fo11oH7ng continents in order to clarify certain language and mitigation measures set forth in the document. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. 1. HVdrologX. a. ~>ttiligation Measures 7-la a~TC~ 7-1 $. Mitigation Measure 7-la of the Draft EIR requires the applicant to conduct a hydraulic analysis of the proposed storm drain system from the Project site to the Oyster Cove outlet to establish whether the existing storm drain pipe has capacity to accommodate the increased flows resulting from the proposed Project, based on the storm drain plan that was previously submitted to the City. In the event that the storm drain does not have sufficient capacity to contain the additional flows, Mitigation Measure 7-lb must be implemented. Mitigation Measure 7-lb requires subnuttal of a revised storm drain plan for the Project that will include dra~evings of the netiv system and calculations of the new system's capacity. Home Depot agrees that these mitigation measures are adequate for the Project as proposed, and would mitigate Impact 7-] to a less than significant level. however, Home Depot plans to prepare and submit to the City a revised storm drainage plan for the Project that will closely follow the drainage patterns of the existing Levitz site (approximately half of the site currently drains to the railroad right of way, while the other half of the site drains to 26 CALIFORNIA 57. SUITE 500 -AIJ FRANCISCO, CA gq i t i cLEPMONE. (G 4 5 1 7 9 B• c D 4 0 p.c D-1 FnCSIM ILE: t4 I57 788c039 w w w r_ s d k t ~a w c n m r-- Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco IViarch 17, 2006 Pagc Z Dubuque Avenue). Because the Project .vould have almost the same amount of impervious surfaces as the existing Levitz site (sec the exhibits entitled "Existing Impervious Surfaces" and "Proposed Impervious Surfaces," attached) the site's drainage pattern would correspondingly remain consistent with the existing drainage patterns after the Project is constructed. Home Depot therefore proposes revisions to the Mitigation Measure 7-Ib to allow far that possbility and to ensure that, in any event, the Project will not exceed the drainage capacity available for stone water runoff from the Project site and thus have Iess than significant storm drainage impacts. The proposed revisions are as follows (strikethroughs indicate deleted text and double underlines indicate added text): Revised Storm Draia Plan. If the Starm Drain Analysis described in tiiitigatian Measure 7-1a cannot show that the existing storm drain has capacity for Project flows, ar in_lieu of imnlementine Mitigation Measure 7-7a. the applicant shall submit a Revised Stone Draia Plan for the Project. The revdsed plan shall include drawings of the ne~v proposed system, and shalt include calculations of the new system capacity. If th revised elan shows drainage to env othe~~rea_than I7ubu~o~e~gvenue and the railroad right of wav- ' the revised lap woul a to water o ca ac' a t e storm drain tzvefs) in Question. the followine methods shall be incorporated into the Project designs - • Q - z ion' and or Storm water drain line ungrad --~~tig,at}~ 114eas~e? ?~eq~-in~p pert-er~e~fer#reatm area Prior to the issuance of a eradna permit for the Pr 'ec ,changes to the Project Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Storm Water Coordinator and the City Engineer. b. Mitigation Measure 7-2b. Mitigation Measure 7-2b lists certain design measures to be incorporated into the storm drain system, including a catch basin at the end of the required vegetatedlgrass Swale to direct runoff into an infiltrarion area. This method of infiltration is infeasible, because according to the geotechnical report for the sire, the upper S- 7 feet of the soils underlying the site are primarily a clay and silt mix. This would prohibit any type of infiltration of storm water into the ground. Home Depot Therefore proposes the following changes to Mitigation Measure 7-2b (strikethroughs indicate deleted text and double underlines indicate added text), which would mitigate the identifited impact to a less D-2 ..~. _ . ~..~.. .. _~. .. ~_ . ... ..~. ~......_.... .._ . _ ....., .,~.. ~...~., r.-. 1Qr. Steve Carlsoq Senior Planner City of South San Francisco ldarch 17, 2006 Page 3 than significant level: Additional Storm ti'Vater Treatment Control Methods Shall Be Incorporated into the Project'. The Project shall incorporate one ofthc following design measures into the stone drain system: A vegetated(grass swale along the perimeter of the parking lot with_a_ catch basin ai the end of tl~~~l~ which shall connect to the storm drain svstem;~r • Anther tune of mechanical filtration system that will clan fv storm water keavine the site to a_deeree that is acceptable to the City of South San Francisco Citv Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator. --A-ts d b m-t~ie ~~ ~ ,..,~..t~ i......:......w i Ate The Drain Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Starm Water Coordinator. 2. Traffic, a. Overland Peer Review. Home Depot asked its consultant, Overland Traffic Consultants ("Overland"), to prepare a peer review ofthe traffic analysis that was prepazed by Crane Transportation Group and included in the Draft E1R. A cagy of Overkand's review is attached hereto. Overland has concluded that the Drafr EIR adequately addresses the Project's potentially significant traffic impacts. Overland has suggested, and Home Depot now requests, that where certain mitigation measures require a "fair share contribution" toward traffic improvements, the Final EIR for the Protect include additional information regarding the total cost of each improvement, the estimated percentage of the total cost for which Home Depot would be responsible and the resulting fair shaze cost for which Home Depot would be responsible. D-3 b. Co~rsc~vatiti~eNature of~lnalysis. The traffic studyprepared for the Draft EIIt is based on certain `worst case" assumptions, which resulted in a very conservative scenario analyzed in the study. This is an etI'ective method io use in preparing the Draft EIR, D-4 as it leads to the identification of every traffic impact that could possibly occur, but in reality the traffic impacts of the Project wilt likely be far less intense. The three primary `worst case" assumptions are as follotivs: i~ir. 5#eve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco _l~iarch 17, 2006 Yage 4 The Project's average trip generation rates were increased by 25% "in order to provide a safety factor for impact analysis" Thus, the impacts to affected intersections have been substantially inflated as compared to impacts based oa trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003). No "diverted linked trip capture" or "pass-by trips" were projected for the Project during the AM peak hour, and only a minor level of such trips were projected during the PM peak hour. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual allows for up to 40% of the trips to home improvement stores to be counted as pass-by trips, i. e., vehicles that would still travel past the site even if the store did not exist. Vti'hile the maadmurn of 40% may not be applicable in the present situation, based Home Depots experience with other stores in similar types of locations it is expected that at least 10% to 15% of the AM and PM peak hour trips to the store in question will be pass by trips_ Therefore, the number of trips that the Project wauld actually Generate is likely to be at least 10% to 15% lower than the number of trips on which the Draft EIR analysis is based, and the actual traffic impacts of the Project would be correspondingly reduced. An average of 30% of the Project's AM and PM peak hour trips were expected to come from the San FranciscolBrisbane area, whereas in reality this number will likely be much lower due to demand from those areas being captured by the new Home Depot in Daly City and the proposed Home Depot in San Francisco. Therefore, traffic impacts resulting from traffic to and from areas to the north of the Project site (for ins(ance, impacts at the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point l3oulevard/Dubuque Avenue/LJ.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp} are likely tv be less than estimated in the Draft E11t. ~'Ve are not necessarily recommending that the City alter the conservative approach of the Draft EIR, but we do think that it is important for decision-makers to understand the conservative nature of the approaches selected, which likely overstate Project impacts. c. Mitigation Measure 11-1 D. Horne Depot has the following comments regarding Mitigation Measure I 1-10: e Home Depot supports the required widening ofDubuque Avenue to D-rJ provide a southbound left tum lane into the Project's center Dubuque Avenue driveway. The preliminary layout of this proposed mitigation is shown on two of the attached exhibits ("Center Left Turn Exhibit" ..o. . , ~....... ......... ..... ... ...., ~..,,.......~ .~... ....... .,~.. ........., r... iVlr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco 1+Iarch 17, 2006 Fage 5 and "Site Plan No. CA-464n"). This mitigation measure also requires the City of South San Francisco to post speed limit signs along Dubuque Avenue and to prohibit on- street parking along the Project's Dubuque Avenue frontage. While Home Depot encourages the City to take these actions, and the City has indicated its intent to do so, mitigation measures must be feasible and must be directed toward the project sponsor, i_e. the applicant. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the mitigation measure to require that the City undertake any actions, and those requirements should be removed_ The mitigation measure would also prohibit left turns out of the northernmost Home Depot driveway along Dubuque Avenue, which appears to be inappropriate. The stated need. ,for this prohibition is that "adequate sight lines [305-360 fee! for travel speeds of 40-45 miles per hour] do not exist to allow for cars io safely turn left Born the northern driveway" (Draft EIR, p. 11-77). However, the mitigation measure independently requires that landscaping be maintained to "allow permanent sight lines of at least 360 feet in both directions from each Project driveway." Thus, the stated problems with the [eft turn movement would no longer exist with the implementation of this mitigation measure. With adequate sight lines to the south, plus the proximity of the existing traffic signal at the Dubuque Avenue southbound off-ramp intersection to the north, lirniled - if any- tra.fGc Conflicts would occur at this location. As such, the proposed left turn would not result in any significant traffic impacts that required mitigation. Therefore, Home Depot requests that this requirement be removed. The mitigation requires consideration of an "all way stop" control at the Project's central driveway intersection "if needed." This requirement provides no performance standard to establish when such a control would be "needed." More fundamenta]!y, the other components of this mitigation measure (e.g, provision of sight lines of at ]east 360 feet in both directions) will ensure safe traffic conditions al the Project's central driveway intersection such that installation of an all way stop control is unnecessary. Therefore, Home Depot requests that the "all ~vay stop" component be removed from this mitigation measure. d. 1Lfitigation Measurell-11. MitigationMeasure l1-]1 requires revisions to the parking layout for the Project to provide additional channelization and storage D_6 for inbound vehicles at the north Project driveway. Home Depot has prepared a preluninary Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of S outh San Francisco March 17, 2006 Page 6 plan of the revised layout, which is shown in the exhibit attached hereto ("Site Plan No. CA- 964n") and wilt be submitted as an amendment to the Project application in the near future. As you can see, the revised layout changes the geometry of the ramp to the second floor of parking, so site circulation wnthin the northern section of the parking garage will be adequately managed even without the striping/signing plan required by Mitigation Measure L 1-11. Therefore, once the Project application has been amended to relleet the revised layout, the second requirement under Mitigation tiieasure 11-I 1 will be inapplicable. 3. Alternatives. Home Depot believes that the alternatives analysis set forth in the Draft EIR includes a reasonable range of a[ternahves to the proposed project, as required by CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6. The alternatives analysis correctly concludes that the proposed Project provides the best balance between satisfaction of the project objectives and ntigaton of environmental impacts io the extent feasible, as described and analysed in the Drag E1R. As noted in the Draft EIR, neither the No Project.Alternativengrthe O.SO Floor Area Ratio Alternative would meet the project goals and objectives set forth on page 3-2 of the Draft EIR. These goals and objectives include the following: (i) to comply with the objectives of the General Plan, the City Planning Code and all applicable codes, plans and ordinances of South San Francisco; (ii) to provide new retail employment opportunities to residents of South San Francisco cad surrounding areas; (iii) to provide a source of significant new sales tax revenue to South San Francisco; and (iv) to satisfy the home improvement needs for both do-it-yoursetf customers and local contractors in South San Francisco and the surrounding area by offering Home Depot's complete range of home improvement services and products. D-7 4. Revised Charts. The charts on pages 7-11, 7-16, 7-18, 9-2 and 9-3 ofthe Draft I EkR were formatted incorrectly and are difficult to read. Please provide revised charts in the D-8 Final EIR. Thank you very much for your consideration of this letter. We look forward to continuing to work with you during the CEQA and entitlements process. if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at (41 ~) 788-2t}4t). Very truly yours, (/t~~ `-- Deborah L. Kartig r cc: Greg George Ann Jerhoff Frank Coda Caroline 5haty David Tait Jerry Overland ~~o rn ~ x ~ ~ :n OOC~ ~ ~ ~ N C]~D ~I ~~ D • r*i LJ LJ 1 ! ~ N V lO W~ ` N -... / ~ ~ J i U // U1 an o ,~, ~ -'~•IN aim ? ~°~ ~~~ ® ExiSTiNG 1MPERVlOUS SURFACES PROJECT No. HoD4aso DATE: 03114/06 ° ' ' ' " ° HOME DEPOT -SOUTH 5AN FRANCISCO BY: ~ MAS ses sw w.aepsti o. eu m Power oR sra~ Tasoo.+saao ' Faem.~szccn THE HOME DEPOT SCALE NTS +...~. - a.e.. • ~.~~ • •~•~• SOt1TH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA SHEET NO. EXt •- ~... k l f~~ ~ ~ ,~ m Q ~ . m O --~ f• _ j y! h F ~ ,_ a _ t: i ~ ra £ ~ ~~ e P J `/`~ O -0 W ` ~~ ~~ ~ ~.^ ~ ~ __ ~'~Tr-" ~ moo ~ - O • ~ ~ ~ -1 - ~ ~ ° per ~ r` NCtn O _..._' -~ 4I. 11 _ ~ r~ frt _~ _ ~viD ~ ~~~ n ~D C t m>~ ~7 ~ p _ ~ ~n rte,, ~ N D .. ~ ' U] N tD / N ~ i ~ 4t ,i / _ w ~ /~ J ~ - ~ D //// ~ N a u ••' ~ N s ~ ~ ~ Ql `- ~ d W i ~ ~ ~ N V ~ ~ p :dV~ ® PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES PROJECT tJO. HOD48$0 p c ~ ~ ~ N ~ N c ~ HOME DEPOT -SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE 03/94/06 s.s uw wmy.r o, s. m row,, w rrm BY: MAS TK soa11vz6W ~ soaeezcW THE HOME DEPOT SCALE: NTS "`° "°~° ""~""°'~" • """' SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CAl.IFORNW SHEET NO. EX2 ..._. _ "...... .. _ .. .. ._, .,. ..... ~........,.. ..... ........ ..~.. ...~.~... r-. ~.. ~ Overland Trafftc Consutterns - ~'-s~ A M ~I 27201 Toomey Road q 206 -' ~ • ~ , ~ Santa Clarita, CA .9].355 ~ ~'~ Phone: (661) 799 -8423 . ~" :~~-~is~ac T F.ax: (661J 799 -8456 E-mall: liz~overlendtraffic.com March 2, 2006 Ms. Caroline Shaw Greenberg Farrow 15101 Red Hitl Avenue, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Review. of the Traffic Section of the DEIR for City of South San Francisw Home depot (January 2006) Dear IVIs. Shaw. Overland Traffic Consultants -has prepared this overview of the traffic section contained in the ©EIR dated January 2006 forthe proposed Home Depot located on Dubuque Avenue south of Qystar Point Boulevard in the City of South-San. Francisco. Overall. the traf~ic'sections adequately address the potential project and cumulative traffrc impacts of the proposed- new store as well as potential access and internal. circulation impacls'an-site. Adeguactr of Anatvsis - In our opinion, the traffic analysis correctly identifies share term (2006) and longs-term (2020) traffic impacts associated with the project and future cumulative development. Furthermore, the analysis methodology and supporting documentation appears to ire adequate and thoroughly researched with staff approval: Overal! the traflec impact analysis appears to be conservative in that the estimated project generated traffic volume has been increased by 25% above tfie lTE average traffic rates for home improvement stores. Furthermore, the project #raffic impacts are based on an trnconstralned assignment of the estimated peak hour traffic flow, in other words, the routing of the project traffic to andfrom-the project site is not adjusted to account for the level of future intersection congestion. An unconstrained assignment of the project traffic flow does present a conservative 'rnrorst case" analysis of the project traffic impacts at the adjacent study intersections. A-Traffic ~n>alneerln~ and Transnortafion Plannln>a Consulting Services Comnany ..o. .. ~..~,. , . ,,.... ~..~ .. ... .,.., ~....,....~ ..~ . ~ ....... ..~... ~~~., r.. ~~, i~, OVerlanci Traffic Consultants, 1nc.. ,~L~ ~ .: _ Ails. Caroline Shaw Marrh~2, 2t)[)fi Page 2 We recommend that more specefc details of the Home Depot projects fair share contribution to the intersection improvements be included in the Fnal EIR so Home Depot can realize the financial e~osure of those improvements {e.g.; cost, fair share °,~, payment schedule. etc.). Access and Antemai Grculation - We agree with the widening of Dubuque Avenue along the project frontage to provide for a left tum lane, the prohibition of on-street parking along the Dubuque Avenue frontage and the lowering bf the posted speed limit afung #his segment ~f Dubuque Avenue. We also agree that proper sight lines need to be provided far the project's driveway locations. Left tum access from the northerly driveway should be evaluated with the recommended modifications tie the attest frontage along Dubuque Avenue (i.e., street widening, lower posted vehicular . speed limits, and low height landscaping). Upon review ofthe sight lines with these recommended modifications, a determination should bs made as to ihs adequacy of the sight lines and Isft tum egress at the northerly driveway: In summary, we believe-the traffic impact arialys[s prepared for the South San Francesco. Home Depot project is adequate and provides the decision makers with the information necessary to rule on the pn~ject, Please contact me if you need any additional information, have any cornment5 or questions. Sincerely, ~~ `~0.~-~.~..-,oP Jerry Overland A Yrai''Pic Engineering and Transportation Piannfng Consulting Services Com~anY 1101 1 1 c.vull -i. 1u1 11 V1 1 1 u1 JJI 1 I~III111111V L1 V 1 OJIJ-OGJ-OOJJ P•1G ~~. d - - ~ ~ _~. -- ;:~ f ~ !-~ ~- ~ '~ _ t it _ -. 's ~ _ ~ ~ / ,P m z 1 :° v ~ _ _ O ~ o , / l: _~ {{pp. w / Z '[ •. __~~..~-.. y ~~ ~~.~ Sys` .~` \ cry\t r~`~-~.` ~~\'~`f~~.'~h~\`~~~~5`~,~ / - --- -° --- f~J-`- -~ _ 1. __. ~.. _. 4 _ v In i° s o _.. j_ _- -__ 6 i . i v ~ ~~ j :~e ~`' ---- - ---~ - -- ` c ~~ __.. !. 4 N c 1~1 - _ -___ __-.1 ___ / t U %~ - - - ---- tz: ~ A - ~-- - r' / I( __ \ ~ ..~~/~ r _ i / j . .. / .' / .-~ '~ PROJECT N0. FIOD4f1G0 CENTER LEFT TURN EXH{BIT ®® onrE oaneroa HOME DEPOT -SOUTH SAN FFiANC15C0 BY: MRS ~~~ ~.1.Ir..w.c ~a~ THE HOME DEPOT SHEET NO. 7-~ 6DUM SPN FPNJG"aC4 CALIFORNU ^~- M • ^^°°~ • ~• C o ~ ~ /~~ L~ p; ` V r ~ $~~ ~ ~~~ „~J .I<. +aa+ `{ Y~ - Y~± .~r~~N ky ! l~- ~~ 7 • ~ ~ ~/' d ~ j r5c1 `~ q 4 1 ' ., :_ ~'~tt a s ~ ~:~~. ~• B • "Y - ~ a ~: t:: __ '~ ~ _ ~ 1 ~ ~ ,'~ ~ _ - '! ,u y ` + ~ T- ~ ~~ ~~Yi rat` , ~a 5 - - ~~"+ese _ ~ _- w3~~t` -° -_ __ _- ~ i ~ I 1 I I I #r ~ ~ -- i~ -- ~ ~ , I ` ~ .H _ q D y~- a~ atlnl ~ -.cC ~ - ~, '.- e e r~.c 3~ `~ i - ~ ~.f Z a a c ~0 ' _ yb Z ~w+- n Q s~~ _ O f a ~' , a ~ ;.. x " ', t ~ g Q ~ i ~ tip'- @ ~ -~ 9 ~-,~ ~ ~ ,p. ~„ ~ f: ...~Ta~=rte jp} i=j1` g`g ~~ I~i ~ili t j i~@@l~i Cdr !ii!j .~ 1S i i:ir ~~}~n e i a~~' c ~Y~i2 !~03 ~`S~r rrr t~~~~ ~+ ie , ~~ ~ R 11 o ? '=x I ~~ a M1=xI ~ s~a N w s h g "~ ~~ YYEE "H~ ~ y ti i ~ a` ~~;~ `K+ F-t~ 0.~ bg J'f -s ~ ~ ~ i ~ a r a F ., c i ~~ 'y EE 7 ri~ F ally a r'~~¢ ~i 'r ~ ~ i° s' ~ 0 u ZU ~ 4E - ^ -s W ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ S: ~G e ~ ~ ~ ~ n 9§ 7i CC ~ p2C ~€_ A~3~c ~: ~ ~~a~i ar a ~ ~ y ~ d ~R~1 =z< O . ~ ;._a o ~ ~ .~ Y ~ ~~ ~ asx `~ y x ~ ~ d Z g ~5~ ° ~ ~ ~.. y ~ Y~ ~ E a ~ 3 ` L aY « ~ ' ~ ~7j2S ~S. ~ R k x!1~~ as °s ~ a ~p(~ p ~- ~ Y 5^ C ~ ~ ~ ~ : . a ~ ~b~~ tu~p ~ ~ a~ : ~-a 3 e d §,~ - a ~Yy ~ d~~4 P € a8 ~ ~5# a>;Pa i$ @f: `sa ~~iii CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter D: Cassidy Shimko Dawson Kawakami (Applicant Attorneys), March 17, 2006. Response to Comment D-1: Comments noted. However, the existing drainage system includes an unimproved vegetated Swale at the toe of slope at the edge of the railroad right of way. This existing feature could be incorporated into a vegetated swale and on site detention/retention system as required by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department in a comment letter on the Administrative Draft EIR for the project. Additionally, the existing unimproved drainage system along the edge of the railroad right of way may not be sufficient to handle 50% of site drainage, and was observed to pond water in an uncontrolled manner. Any detention/retention at the project site will likely also require an outlet pipe to the Oyster Point Boulevard outlet because of restrictions on site runoff into the Colma Creek flood control channel and the low permeability of the site soils. Response to Comment D-2: Comments noted. However, no infiltration study has been conducted to determine if soils have permeability conducive to infiltration of storm water in a detention basin. Additionally, the existing site runoff at the slope adjacent to the railroad right of way includes an unimproved vegetated Swale which channels water to the railroad right of way where water slowly infiltrates or evaporates. While silty clay soils, such as those detected in the geotechnical study, are not the best soils for infiltration in a detention basin, these soils do allow for infiltration of water over time depending upon the soil rate of permeability, the underlying soil permeability, and the depth to groundwater. Inclusion of an outlet pipe in a detention basin which channels overflow water into the storm drain system is a common feature in storm water treatment and management systems. As required in the Mitigation Measures for the project, the revised Drainage Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of South San Francisco City Engineer and Storm Water Coordinator, and shall also be reviewed and approved by the County of San Mateo Flood Control District. Any modifications to the requirements as set forth in the EIR shall be approved in writing by these public agencies. Response to Comment D-3: Comment noted. The City will prepare the "fair share contribution" calculations. Response to Comment D-4: The City has limited experience with traffic associated with home improvement centers. While the study may be viewed as more conservative in its assumptions, it is a prudent and legitimate approach and will ensure that the impacts are identified, analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures developed. The need to identify the impacts and develop corresponding mitigation measures is especially important for the following factors -more than one home improvement center is under review for Dubuque Avenue; the Oyster Point and the Grand Avenue Freeway Interchanges and the frontage road, Dubuque Avenue, have limited remaining capacity; CalTrans has commented on this and other related DEIRs regarding the need for greater specificity; and the City is considering the adoption of the HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-27 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES statement of over-riding considerations because of the lack of feasible mitigation measures. We concur with the commentators statement that it is an "effective method to use in preparing the Draft EIR ." Response to Comment D-5: Mitigation Measure 11-10 will be revised to identify that the posted speed limit should be no greater than 35 miles per hour and will not identify the implementing agency. The prohibition of left turn exiling movements needs to remain to reduce future potential traffic conflicts. This is especially appropriate given the increase in traffic on local streets generated by the rapid private redevelopment of the area east of U.S. 101, the increasing use of the CalTrain station on the southerly end of Dubuque Avenue and the proposed home improvement center adjacent to the station. While visibility will be improved, the "all way stop" should be left as an option to provide a high level of traffic safety. The condition will be revised to add that a traffic study to determine the need of the intersection control be conducted at the applicant's expense no later than 2010. Should the "all way stop" determined to be necessary by the City's Engineer the applicant would be obligated to install the intersection controls. Response to Comment D-6: To function efficiently and minimize on-site circulation conflicts, both the parking lot and the garage need to have a stripping and signing plan. The City's experience has been that such visual cues are important circulation controls that have proven effective and minimal cost. Response to Comment D-7: Comment noted. Response to Comment D-8: Comment noted. However, it appears to the EIR authors that the tables are written in plain language and use appropriate graphics so that the public can rapidly understand the document, consistent with CEQA Guideline 15140. It is unclear to the authors what is difficult to read or improperly formatted in the tables. PAGE 19-28 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 03/30/2006 14:33 5202865559 CALTRAI+fS PAGE 01 57A7EOFCA~6+i1RMA-RUS1NlL4S TRANSPORTATION AND~ni15fN[ ~r~^~ ARN(?inS~,IMwRZHVacrR DEPARTMENT 41i ')1"RANSPOR'1<'ATAON t Y 1 GtiAND AVEtJilE P. O. BOK 23b60 OAKLAND, CA 94b23-0660 PHONE (510) 266-5505 FAX {5 t0} 286-5559 e e r TTY (8170} 735-2929 March 30, 2006 N[r, SEeve Carlson City of South San Fr~cisco Planning Department 31 S Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Carlson: Flex your pawn! Be eA~rtr r,$lrfenil SMI014t5 SCfI#2005082032 HOME DEPOT -1D13AFf ENVIRON14gENTAL IMPRCT REI'OR7l' This letter provides supplemerltnl cotttments on the Rome Depot Draft Egvironrnental Impact Report (DE1R) to our March 16, 20061erier. Additions) corn~menta may be forlhcomltrg pending review of Synchro run files rtxeived March 29, 2006. Heghway Pperntinns 1. Please provide protect-related turning movement volumes only- withou[ base case volumes. This will show the amount of projec[-related traffic. I , E-1 2. The capacity of an auxiliary lane is the lesser of the on- or off-ramp. Page 11.15, Ft~eeway Operations, Analysis Methodology, I E-2 3. Since stated capacities in t}te DEIIt are passenger car equivalents (pre), truck volume data should be adjusted to pre throughout the DFilt, grad the analysis should be re-run. Page 11- I E-3 2!, Freeway Ramp E~pcrationa, Analysis Methodology. 4, The project should be required to pay fair share fees to taitigate the project's impact to the northbound off--ramp at the US lO1/Dubuque ,A,venue intersection. The Base Case + Project I E-4 volume of 2,011 vehicles pcrhour (vpb) at the northbound Dubuque Avenuoe off-ramp would requite atwo-lame off-ramp. Prlge I1-23, Table 11-6. 5. Will Base Case + 13'pject queues at tfte northbound leg of the Oyster Point Houlevard/Dubuque Avcnuc intersection back up beyond the US IQ! Ramps at Dubutlue Avenue onto the US 1Q1 mainline? How will this affect off-ramp traffic? Mitigation should E-tj be recommended for project-related impacts; this could include payittg fair share fees. Were the Dubuque Avenue interrsectiogs et Oyster Point Boulevard and U5 I01 Ramps analysed as independent freebody intersectjons or were they analyzed together? They should be analyzed "Cobront lmyrw~s mobiliryat-wi Califarnio" . ,a, .,.,., ...., ~. .. .... .... ...,. " ., . ~ . ~..... .. , _ ~ ....., ., ~.. ........, r..., 93/30/200(; 14:33 5102!365559 CA1.1'RAtJ6 Mt. Sieve Ca[Hon PAGE 02 Mutt 3p. 2000 Page 2 as a coordinated system and not as independent freebody intersections as queues from one intersection can impact the intersection upstr>ram. Pages l]-25 to 11-28, Tables 11-7 to ]1- 1D. 6. Why isn't tht nottltbourtd leg of the US 101 RarnpslDubuque Avenue interchange included in I E_6 the analysis in Tables I1-7 to 11-10? Pages 11-25 to 11-2t3. ?_ Wit) the Base Case + Protect in Year 2020 queues at the U5 101 Southbound RarnpslBayshore Boulevard intstsection extend back onto southbound US 10]? Mitigation should be recommended to redoes any significant impacts to u Icss than significant level. I E-7 Again, this could include payment of fair share fees. Page ! I-2ti, Table l I-]0. t3. Adding just one vehicle to an existing 95'~ percentile queue that is operating unacceptably will result in a significant impact that requires mitigation. Mo. B under Impact Analysis on I E-8 Page 11-55 is not a Caltrans criterion. 9. Mitigation to reduce project impacts to a less than significant level shrwld be identified. An explanation should be ptvvided whet~e mitigation is determined to be infeasible. Page 11-ti8, I E-9 Mitigation Measure 1 t-2. l0. The City as lead agency, and Home Depot as project applicant are responsible for ensuring that sufficient mitigation is irnplernented. The DE]R should recommend mitigation to redoes project innpacta to a less than significant Ievel, aqd the applicant should be required to contribute fair share fees. The DEIR states that project volumes would be the sarnc or Icss E-10 than the t?t"fice/Rdtl} uses projected for the sift. What mitigation was requlred for the Office/R&D use? Nas thuis mitigation been implet~ented?Page 11-73, (impact 11-8 Year 2020 Freeway,Ratnp Irttpacts, PM Peak Hour. 1 !.The DEIR should identify all intersections currently operating with significant 95u' percentile queues, and all intotsectiona where project traffic will result in significant 95'~ percentile queues. Mitigation should be t~eeomrttended for all intersections operating with cignilf'rcant E-11 95"' percentile queues with the addition of any project trips. 5irree even one additional vehicle would cause a significant impact, a volume increase of two percent is not rtguired to cause a significant impact. Signal Dpirations I . Unless new signal phasing is proposed, use existing phasing. Existing phasing is not reflected E-12 in the 5yneltro models. I 2, The Gateway Boulevard/Oyster point Boulevard intersection shauld be included in the Synchro modus. I E-13 3. Mitigation should be rccotnrnended fox queuing problems at the northbound US 101 off-ramp during the P1Vi pew, I E-14 4. Most intersections are over capacity in the Year 2020 scenarios. Mitigation, including paying fair share fees, should be recommended forthe project's contribution to these impacts. I E-15 "Caltrtins Imyrvnr innbi(i7 oCrpDJ Ctr7vfvmio" 1101 i.) V L-V V V J• V Lt t 1 V 1 1 1 VI JVI 1 L.11l 11111IV U 1 Y 1 VJU ULJ VUJJ r- T ©3/30/2006 14:33 5182865559 GALTRAf~S Mr. Score Carl-on Match 34, 200b Ptgt 3 PAGE 83 2'rgjfic 1. Indicate the resulting level of significance after mitigation in the calumn for each analysed intersection. Page 2-18. Mitigation 11-5A for 50'" Percentile Queue. 2. For clarity, recotluncnded mitigation measures and resulting level of significance shau]d correspond to the respective potential impacts for each analyzed intcrsectivn. Page 2-1B, Mitigation 11-5B for 95''' Percentile Queue. 3. The result5ng level of signifeance should be identified in the column for each analyzed intersection. Pages 2-19 through 2-21. 4. Bayshore Boulevard is not located along I~oz~ae Depot frontage; Dubuque Avenue is the only I roadway that fronts the project site. Page 1 l -2, Index 11.2 Setting, 2°~ Paragraph. 5. 'The eastern boundary of the project siu is the railroad, not Hayahorz Boulevard. page 11-2, Index 11.2 Setting, 4u' Paragraph. 6. Where Is the Veteran's Road/pyster Point Boulevard intersection? It is not included under Study Intersections on Page 11-5. Tl~ie DEIR should describe how this intesse~tion I improvement will help mitigate project impacts. Provide suppaning data and analysis for independent verificatioza. Page 11-30, P)an>raed Transportation System Irmpruvements, 2"d Paragraph. 7. The Gateway Boulevatd/East Grand Avenue intersection is riot included under study Intersections on Page ll-S. The DEIR should describe how this intersection improvement will help mitigate proect impacts. Page 11-3D, Planned Transportation Sys[crn improvements, 2°d Paragraph. 8. Is the City planning to widen the Grand Avenue approaches et the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection to accommodate the proposed additional lanes? The DEIR does not appear to analyze the intersection, nor to recommend mitigation. Please c}arify this apparent omission. Page 11-33. Figuttr 11-7, Yeas Z0~0 Lane Geometries and Intersection Control. 9. Wliy is a U-turn rtrovement ptt~poscd for eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard at the Bayshare Baulevaitii/Airport Boulevard intersection? 3s it necessary to provide an eastbound U-turn at this imersectlon't There is not enough width on Sister Cities Hoesievard to allow U-turns unless the City plans to widen this street. Please verify and explain this proposed improvement. Provide supparti~ng data and analysis for independent vcrificatio>fa. !0. The City should revise the General Ptan to develop a mitigation plan for vaffc problems in the project vicinity, While the DEIR found traffic impacts at several study area intersections to be significant and unavoidable, the long delays at these intersections should not be ignored. Moreover, operations at intersections east of US l01 will degXadc even further es development continues end lend uses intensify. E-16 E-17 E-18 E-19 E-20 E-21 E-22 E-23 'CoAraaa ialp-ovu ma6iJiryACrott Caltfomia" .. ©3/38/2006 14:33 ?trl. SICYt (.~f ~lDli Mush SD, 2006 Pt~c d 5102865559 CALTRANS Hyd,~~r;~s 2. Grading and drainage plans sltoui'd be subrnittt:d far review when they are available 2. New dcvelopnaent at the project site should not alter existing drainage patterns, 3. Table 7-I and 7-2 aztd figure ?-3 should be revised so that they axe readable. r•~ PAGE 84 I E-24 ~ E-25 ~'ncroarltneerit Permit Work that encroaches ante the Sratc ROW requites an encroachtnenl permit that is issued by the Depattrperat. To apply, a completed encroachment documentation, and five (S} seta of plane clearly indicating 5taue ROW mu t be submited to the addtsss below. Traffle-tetated mitiga[ion measures should be incorporated in[o the constructiorx plans during the encxnacbmtnt permit process. See the website link below for xnoro inforanetioa http://www.dot.ca.goo/hq/~f;opycteyelopserv/pex~xxitsJ Sean NDZZeri, Distrlet O>~ice Chief Office of Permits California DO'P, DistSrict 4 P,O. Box 23b6D Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice a! my stallf at (Sl0) 622-1ti44 at Patricia mauriceC~3dot,ca. nv with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, TIIviOTHy . SAIBLE District Branch Chief ~GRICEQ a c= Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse Mr. David Tait, The Tait Group E-26 E-27 .,CaLrune NWrorof mv6lfiry arras ~!/`oro/a" CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter E: California Department of Transportation, District 4, March 30, 2006. Response to Comment E-1: Project-related turning movement volumes are provided in Figure A (AM Peak Hour) and Figure B (PM Peak Hour), which have been added to Chapter 18. Response to Comment E-2: It is agreed that an auxiliary lane idealized capacity is that of the on- or off-ramp it connects to. With single lane on-/off-ramp capacities of ±2,000 vehicles per hour, this would indicate an auxiliary lane capacity almost the same of the adjacent freeway lane. If there were no weave movements to/from the auxiliary lane, this capacity would be appropriate. However, with weave movements, a lower capacity is likely. The year 2000 highway capacity manual freeway analysis methodology has been utilized to determine the added capacity to be considered for those segments of the U.S.101 freeway analyzed in the study that also contain an auxiliary lane. This produces a lower added increment of capacity due to the auxiliary lane than would be the case assuming the auxiliary lane has the same capacity as the on- or off-ramp it connects to. Potentially, this lower capacity reflects the impact of weave movements to/from the auxiliary lane. The analysis presented in the EIR is more conservative (and potentially realistic) than just assuming the auxiliary lane capacity is the same as the connecting on- or off-ramp. Response to Comment E-3: It is agreed that capacities for freeway ramp operations in Tables 11-5 and 11-6 are stated in passenger car equivalents (I'CE). Volumes presented in Tables 11-5 and 11-6 are the same as those shown on the figures in the EIR. However, footnotes are provided to each table detailing the adjustments to be made to the volumes for truck to auto PCEs. Results for over or under capacity reflect conversion of truck volumes to PCEs. Also, for all Synchro evaluation of the Oyster Point interchange, the percent trucks is included in the analysis. Response to Comment E-4: The City of South San Francisco has an off-site traffic capital improvements mitigation fee required of all new developments east of the U.S.101 freeway. This fee goes towards a long list of circulation system improvements found to be needed with area buildout traffic (Draft Supplemental EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001). Also, please note that the proposed project reduces the AM peak hour traffic on the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue from volume levels resulting from office development already projected for this site by 2020. It is unknown what capacity level Caltrans is using to judge that the northbound U.S.101 off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue needs to be widened from one to two lanes. Capacity levels used for evaluating ramps at the Oyster Point interchange have stayed the same in studies submitted by the City to Caltrans for review over the past five years. Response to Comment E-5: The Home Depot EIR traffic analysis of the Oyster Point interchange, its ramps and the U.S.101 freeway was based upon the same analysis methodology, software assumptions and significance criteria as utilized in the recent Terrabay Phase 3 DEIR analysis, which has been reviewed by Caltrans District 4. Given that no significant written HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-33 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES response was received from Caltrans District 4 during the course of review of the Terrabay Phase 3 project in regards to any changes they wanted to see in the Terrabay traffic analysis, the exact same procedures were used for the Home Depot traffic evaluation. In addition, a meeting with Caltrans staff was held at District 4 headquarters during the course of the Terrabay review. No changes in analysis procedure were requested at this meeting. Finally, in Caltrans response to the Notice of Preparation for the Home Depot EIR, no direction was given in regards to changes in the analysis procedures for the Oyster Point interchange, its ramps and the U.S.101 freeway from that contained in the Terrabay DEIR analysis. As noted above in Response to Comment E-4, the City of South San Francisco has an off-site traffic capital improvements mitigation fee required of all new developments east of the U.S.101 freeway to account for fair share fees. Response to Comment E-6: The northbound approach to the U.S.101 Ramps/Dubuque intersection was not requested for evaluation by the City, as it is a City controlled approach. Response to Comment E-7: Operation of year 2020 southbound cumulative off-ramp flow at Bayshore Boulevard has been fully evaluated as part of the Terrabay Phase 3 and Home Depot EIRs. A Synchro/SIM traffic presentation was made to Caltrans staff by the City, Crane Transportation Group and Fehr & Peers showing how signal timing adjustments could be made to more readily clear traffic from the off-ramps at the Oyster Point interchange, if needed. Response to Comment E-8: The indication that significance criteria #8 was associated with Caltrans reflected the fact that the Caltrans queuing criteria was the 95th percentile vehicle queue, whereas the City of South San Francisco queuing criteria (in #7) was the 50th percentile vehicle queue. The additional two percent volume increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing had been used in the Terrabay EIR with no comment from Caltrans Response to Comment E-9: It is unknown what additional explanation Caltrans would like provided detailing why the City of South San Francisco considers improvements at the Oyster Point/Dubuque intersection to be infeasible. Response to Comment E-10: Office/R&D uses that have been projected by the City for the site now being considered by Home Depot would be required to pay the City's off-site traffic impact fee. The previously referred to study (Draft Supplemental EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001) has already evaluated year 2020 cumulative volumes with office/R&D development on the project site and developed needed mitigations, where feasible. The proposed Home Depot project will also pay the City's traffic impact fee, but will have year 2020 volumes decreasing or remaining about the same at the on-/off-ramps with previously projected unacceptable Base Case traffic volumes. Response to Comment E-11: The EIR evaluates 95th percentile queues for the Home Depot project in the same manner as analysis conducted in the Terrabay Phase 3 EIR. Caltrans had no comment regarding the use of the same significance criteria for the Terrabay project. PAGE 19-34 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment E-12: It is highly unusual to maintain existing signal timing for planning level analysis of traffic conditions in future horizon years, particularly where significant volume increases are expected, as in South San Francisco. For year 2006 and 2020 evaluation, revised (optimized) signal timing was developed by the Synchro software program for Base Case conditions (AM and PM). This same timing was then maintained for Base Case + Project evaluation. Use of existing timing for future horizon conditions would produce nonsensical results and result in significantly poorer levels of service and queuing results than presented. The more idealized signal timing (which Caltrans and the City would have employed by the different horizons in any event) would then just need to be listed as a mitigation measure in the EIR. Response to Comment E-13: The Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point intersection was not requested for analysis by the City of South San Francisco nor by Caltrans in their response to the Notice of Preparation. It also was not evaluated in the Terrabay Analysis. Response to Comment E-14: There is no northbound off-ramp queuing problem projected during the PM peak hour. Response to Comment E-15: As noted in Response to Comment E-4, the Ciry of South San Francisco has an off-site traffic capital improvements mitigation fee required of all new developments east of the U.S.101 freeway, which will account for fair share fees related to the project's contribution in the Year 2020 scenarios. Response to Comment E-16: Table 2-1 has been reformatted to indicate the resulting level of significance after mitigation for each analyzed intersection and to correspond to the respective potential impacts for each analyzed intersection. The changes are included in Chapter 18. Response to Comment E-17: The reference to frontage along the Home Depot site has been revised from Bayshore Blvd to Dubuque Avenue. The changes are included in Chapter 18. Response to Comment E-18: References to Bayshore Boulevard's adjacency to the eastern boundary of the site have been removed. The changes are included in Chapter 18. Response to Comment E-19: The Veterans Road/Oyster Point intersection is along Oyster Point Boulevard east of the Gateway intersection. Planned improvements at this intersection will not impact operations at the Oyster Point interchange, but were requested for listing by South San Francisco staff, as they are part of an approved development projected for completion by the end of 2006. Response to Comment E-20: Planned improvements at the Gateway/Grand intersection will not help mitigate project impacts. However, they were requested for listing by South San Francisco staff, as they are part of an approved development projected for completion by the end of 2006. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-35 CHAPTER 19: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment E-21: Planned widening of the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection is part of the City's CIP program and will be funded by fees from developments east of the U.S.101 freeway. These improvements are projected by the City to be in place before 2020. Response to Comment E-22: A U-turn movement is shown on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to Airport Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard since the Terrabay Phase 3 development is proposing a right turn in/right turn out access along Sister Cities Boulevard west of the intersection. A median along Sister Cities Boulevard precludes direct left turn inbound access by eastbound traffic at the driveway intersection. If this entrance is ultimately eliminated, then there will be no U-turns. Any needed widening to accommodate U-turn movements would be provided on the Terrabay Phase 3 site. Response to Comment E-23: As noted in Response to Comment E-4, the City of South San Francisco has an off-site traffic capital improvements mitigation fee required of all new developments east of the U.S.101 freeway. This fee goes towards a long list of circulation system improvements found to be needed with area buildout traffic (Draft Supplemental EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Apri12001). Response to Comment E-24: Comment noted. Response to Comment E-25: Comment noted. Response to Comment E-26: Comment noted. However, it appears to the EIR authors that the tables and figure are written in plain language and use appropriate graphics so that the public can rapidly understand the document, consistent with CEQA Guideline 15140. It is unclear to the authors what is difficult to read or improperly formatted in the tables or figure. Response to Comment E-27: Comment noted. PAGE 19-36 HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR RFr 18 2006 1:49PM Arnold Schwarceaegger Governor April 13, 200G Steve Carlson City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Home Depot Project SCR#: 2005082032 t.. ~ ~oi+~.tt... "~ ~°'~~ 3 ~~ Sean Walt:h• 13ircctar -----. . _ . ,_.~ Dear Steve Carlson:. - -------. ---- ----• -- - ~--- - . T1te enclosed conunent {s) on your Draft EIIt wns (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the sta6e review period, which closed oa March 16, 2006. We are forwarding these comments to you • because they provide infortnation or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental documenk F' 1 'The California Environmental Quality Act does aot require Lead Agencies to respond to ]ate conunents. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmeutal document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Cleuringltottse at (91 ~ 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning She environmental review process. Ifyou have a question regarding the above named project, please refer fo the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2005082032) wben contacting this office. Sincerely, ~~ ~ -~.. Tay ~ • Senior Planner,5tate Clearinghouse Enclosures ct: Resources Agency CITY Ur SSI- rt_Nnn1n~ Live bau-~c~-uo~~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governox's office of Planning and~Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit .~~~ APR ~ g ZOpg • ~'L a Letter 1400 'FLId'TF1 STRI;E'T P.O. BOg 91144 SACRAMEN3'O, CAI,IFORMA o6812~U44 TEL (916) 44b-0619 FAR (918) 939-91)18 wRw.vpr.ca.gov This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-38 Letter F: State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research, Apri113, 2006 Response to Comment F-1: Comment noted. Letters dated March 30, 2006 and April 12, 2006 from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) were received following the end of the state review period of March 16. Responses to the comments in the March 30 letter (Letter E) are included in this Final EIR. While not included in the Final EIR, responses to comments in the April 12 are being reviewed by City of South San Francisco staff, and will be incorporated into the staff report for the project. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-39 This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-40 .,ate .. -. ~.,,.., ... T,,,., ~... ..,, ...., , ~......~,.., ...~., ~ ~.....~.-~~.:. ~..~..~., r. o~.~ TOWN OF COLMA ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT 119Q El Camino Real • Colma, CafiFornfa 94014 Phone: (650) 985-2590 • FAX: {650) 985-2578 March 14, zoo6 ~ e t t e r G Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Div(sion P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 MAR 1 s 2006 PL,ANNlN~ ~EP~'. RE: Draft EIR -Home Depot Rroject Dear Mr. Carlson: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Home Depot project on Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco. At this time, the Town of Colma has no comment. Please keep us informed G-1 of the project as it progresses through the development review process. . Planner ti This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-42 Letter G: Town of Colma, March 14, 2006 Response to Comment G-1: Comment noted. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-43 This page intentionally left blank. HOME DEPOT PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 19-44