Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout249 East Grand Ave Project Final Focused EIR 07-12-2006 COUNCIL `-~ RESOLUTION EXHIBIT A ~ FINAL `_ FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-042121 ~_ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A~ 249 EAST G RAN D AVEN U E PRO) ECT i, PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY )uNE 2006 ~rcnml~aa.r~4r~r ti- QASE K ~0 6 ~~~ C j'~ ~~001 '~t'E'~:~Sc z Dr1Tfs CwCtJLA?Epr _fl c.~ bP,r 1 ~ nf-~ r~' ~. ...~. ~_ FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse Number: 2005-042121 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT PREPARED BY LAMPHIER -GREGORY JUNE 2006 CONTENTS Page 1. PREFACE ..............................................................................................................................1-1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report ..........................................................................................1-1 Organization of the Final EIR ...............................................................................................................................1-2 Scope of the EIR ......................................................................................................................................................1-2 Public Review Process .............................................................................................................................................1-3 2. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR .......................................................................................... 2-1 3. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .............................................................................................. 3-1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................3-1 List of Letters ............................................................................................................................................................3-2 A. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research ..........................................................3-3 B. California Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................3-7 C. Bay Area Air Quality Management District ..............................................................................................3-11 D. County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works .............................................................................3-17 E. San Francisco International Airport ..........................................................................................................3-21 F. Alexandria Real Estate Equities ..................................................................................................................3-25 G. California Department of Transportation ................................................................................................3-29 H. California Department of Transportation ................................................................................................3-33 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis ......................................................................................................................... Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output .................................................................................................... Appendix C -Excerpts from South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft ,Supplemental Environmental Impact Keport .............................................................. Appendix D -City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance ...................... 1 PREFACE 1.1 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, including the Partial Revision to the Draft EIR, for the 249 East Grand Avenue 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 periods following the initial publication of the Draft EIR, as well as the recirculation period for the Partial Revision to 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, Partial Revision to 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 Ciry 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 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1-1 CHAPTER 1 : 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 ...." 2 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. 1.2 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 Ciry of South San Francisco Planning Department. 1.3 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 1 State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California F.nvironmentalQuality Act Statutes and Guidelines, 1995, Section 15002(a). 2 Ibid, Section 15382. PAGE 1-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 1 : PREFACE (see Executive Summary Chapter of the Draft EIR). The potentially significant project related impacts identified relate to those areas that are listed below: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • 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. 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was released on April 21, 2005. 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. Based on comments received from the California Department of Transportation during this 45-day period, the Transportation and Circulation chapter of the Draft EIR was recirculated for an additional 45-day period as a Partial Revision to the Draft EIR. Responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR (including the Partial Revision to 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 periods, comprise the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be presented to the Ciry 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. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 1-3 CHAPTER 1: PREFACE 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 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 1-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR In response to comments received on the Draft EIR and Partial Revision to the Draft EIR during their 45-day public review periods, the following revisions in the text of the Draft EIR have been made: On DEIR page 5-2, the following text has been revised as follows: In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of the California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated~ee several times, in 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2005, with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been revised as follows: The city's General Plan designations, and future land use types and intensities, would have been taken into account during preparation of the BAAQMD's 2000 Clean Air Plan and the most recent Clean Air Plan [<Bay Area Ozone Strategy, released in early 2006-~8A9. The Project would therefore be consistent with population projections used to develop the latest, etr,-t-l~Clean Air Plan. Projects should reasonably implement applicable TCMs to be considered consistent with regional clean air planning efforts. Most of the TCMs listed in the latest clean air plans are not directly applicable to the Project. Under the General Plan policies, the project would be reduired to implement a Transportation Demand Management DM~plan to reduce project trips. The City of South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking from City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction goals required per the City's TDM ordinance and supported by various policies in the General Plan. The TDM plan along with General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures identified in the Transportation and Circulation Chapter ~1Vlitigation Measures 13-1, 13-2, 13-3, 13-5. 13-6, and 13-9) would reasonablyimplement TCMs consistent with those contained in the latest approved Clean Air Plan. On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been added as follows: Impact 5-1 Construction Dust and Exhaust. Construction activity involves a high potential for the emission of air pollutants. Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR matter emissions that would affect local air quality. This would be a potentially significant impact. On DEIR page 5-4, the following text has been added as follows: Construction activities from on-site equipment and truck deliveries would emit toxic air contaminants and air pollutants that are not regulated by the BAAQMD. These emissions, although temporary, could affect nearby land uses as well as the Early Years Children's Center. It is unlikely that significant health risks would occur due to: 1) the temporary nature of construction activity, 2) the separation distances between sensitive receptors and the project, and 3) the relatively high occurrence of moderate to strong winds during the construction season. In order to be protective of the health of nearby sensitive receptors. as well as reduce emissions that could affect regional air quality, the project should implement additional construction period mitigation measures. These would be measures beyond those normally recommended by the_BAAQMD to ensure air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. On DEIR page 5-5, the following text has been added as follows: Optional Measures Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. Measures to Reduce Exhaust Emissions The mitigation measures listed below should be implemented to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOX emissions from on-site construction equipment: At least 50 percent of the heavy-duty. off-road equipment used for construction shall be CARB-certified off-road engines or equivalent, or use alternative fuels (such as biodiesel or water emulsion fuel) that result in lower emissions. • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. • Opacity is an indicator of exhaust ,particulate emissions from off-road diesel powered equipment. The project shall ensure that emissions from all construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. PAGE 2-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAfT EIR Antequipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0~ shall be prohibited from use on the site until repaired. • The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.~.. compressorsl. • Diesel equipment standing idle for more than two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were on site. • Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. On DEIR page 5-6, the following revisions were made as follows: The screening computations were made ~-~-'~' ---~~ ~--~ for each intersection for the PM Peak Hour for existing CO concentrations, as well as CO levels in 2008 with and without the Project and 2020 Cumulative Conditions. The following table details the results of the ~~'~~~" "'~~-'~' ~rr~CO analysis. On DEIR page 5-7, Table 5-2 was revised as follows: TABLE 5-2 LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS (parts per million) Model Scenario AllertonlEast Grand CO Concentration Oyster PoinUGateway CO Concentration 1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour Existing ~ 5_9 ~ 4_1 ~ 7_2 ~9S 5_0 2008 no Project ~ 7_1 X38 5_0 ~ 9 6 ~ 66 7 2008 with Project ~9 7_1 ~9 5_0 ~8 9_9 X16_9 2020 Cumulative 4.9 3.4 6.1 4.3 Includes back4round CO level of 5 opm for 1-hour and 2.8 opm for 8-hour levels ON DEIR page 5-7, the following text has been revised as follows: In any scenario, CO emissions would not reach the thresholds established by the BAAQMD of 20 parts per million over a 1-hour period, or 9 parts per million over an 8-hour period. As 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR shown in the above table, CO emissions in the area would increase by 2008 with the proposed Project. However, because ~A8$ CO concentrations associated with project emissions gels in the area would remain below B ambient air quality standards, this impact would be less than significant. On DEIR page 5-7, the following text has been revised as follows: CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE IMPACTS The Project would generate new emissions through new regional vehicle trips. The BAAQMD has developed criteria to determine if a development Project could result in potentially significant regional emissions. The District has recommended that 2,000 daily vehicle trips be used as a threshold for quantifying Project regional impacts. The DEIR used an out of date model, URBEMIS 7G, which over estimated the emissions from direct (area and indirect (vehicles) emissions. The FEIR includes an updated analysis of project emissions using the URBEMIS 2002 (version 8.7) model. The project size along with the trip generation rate forecasted by CTG was input to the model. The modeling assumed that the project would be fully constructed and occupied in 2008. Default assumptions for the San Francisco Bay Area were used. The URBEMIS 2002 , calculations were performed in order to determine whether the Project would exceed air emissions thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), ~ Nitrogen Oxides (NO,~ and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Emissions thresholds are 80 pounds per day for ROG and NOX and 550 pounds per day for CO (if the project is a source of stationary emissionsl. The Project's total emissions are estimated at 63 pounds per da~(lbs/day for ROG, 641bs/day for NOx, and are °~`~~~`~~' ~` ~^ 631bs./day for PM,~. These emissions are below the significance thresholds established by the BAAOMD, thus this impact would be less than significant. On DEIR page 5-7, Impact 5-2 has been revised as follows: Impact 5-2 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. The proposed Project would not exceed B~MD emissions thresholds °`-for ROG, NOX ,and PMIO. This would be a less than significant impact. However, mitigation is proposed to further reduce these impacts. On DEIR page 5-7, Mitigation Measure 5-2 has been revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 5-2 Transportation Demand Management Program. Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program is required, as described in Mitigation Measure 13-1 of the Transportation and Circulation chapter. This lan would reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the Project site.; x PAGE 2-4 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR The following_components should be included in the plan to further reduce ~roiect impacts to air duality: • Support shuttle service to BART and Caltrain. There are currently shuttles that serve employers in the area The project could become a sponsoring employer so that shuttles would serve the site, providing employees an alternative mode of commuting. • Provide bicycle amenities so that employees could bicycle to the project. Such amenities could include safe onsite bicycle access and convenient storag~ike racks. Amenities for employees could include secure bicycle parking, lockers, and shower facilities • The project should include sidewalks with shade trees that provide safe and convenient access to the project and any shuttle or future bus stops that serve the project. • Impact 13-9 of the Transportation and Circulation Section discusses the on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation incorporated into the project. Mitigation Measure 13-9 would require an internal sidewalk to ensure adequate pedestrian circulation. • For all buildings provide outdoor electrical outlets and encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment Also provide electrical outlets for recharging electrical vehicles in commercial and industrial parkin lots Provide 110 and 220 Volt outlets at all loading docks and prohibit trucks from using their auxiliary equipment powered by diesel engines for more than 5 minutes. • Provide new trees that would shade buildings and walkways in summer to reduce the coolies loads on buildings. On DEIR page 5-8, the following deletion has been made as follows: The proposed Project could expose the Early Years Children's Center to on-site emissions during ~~~~~°••~~~~~ ~~~' operation of the Project. On DEIR page 5-8, the following addition has been made as follows: Issues of toxic air contaminants are discussed in Chapter 8 of this document. The project could include laboratory facilities or stationar~quipment that emits air pollution ~e~, standby emergenc~eeneratorsl. These sources could emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants The BAAOMD requires permits for stationary combustion equipment and large 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-5 CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR laboratory facilities. Small laboratories are exempt since their emissions would not likelypose an adverse impact to the public. Stationary equipment or laboratories that subject to permitting requirements must show that impacts to the public would be negligible (e.g. cancer risks would be less than 10 in one millionl. As a result_ these facilities would pose ales-than-significant im act. ODORS During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. On DEIR page 9-3, the following text has been deleted as follows: u n ~ 1 r- i ~......i_ i... rr....~•-- a r t- ~trTn i av w., v..,i, iivvu v,vaa[rv ririrrvva..irrc rr[~[o conil~CTCC1~JIiSCC-[I2C-C7T000'4CT[Z[TC-O'fL2SCT7-7TISS On DEIR page 9-10, the following text has been deleted as follows: On DEIR page 9-10, the following text has been added as follows, replacing the sentence deleted on the same page as shown above: 11 The period between November 1 and May 1 is hereby determined to be the period in which heavy rainfall normally occurs in the citT. During this period no grading work in excess of 200 cubic yards will be authorized on any single grading site under permit where the City Engineer determines that such work will adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. Previously authorized grading work which extends into the rainy season shall be protected by incorporating temporary erosion control devices. Plans of erosion control devices shall be submitted to the Cites Engineer no later than September 1, and design approval obtained not later than October 1. prior to the rainy season. The design of desilting basins which discharge into city streets or natural water courses shall be under the control of the City En ig'neer Temporary erosion controls and devices including desilting basins shall be installed no later than November 1. The City Engineer. in the performance of his duties, ma,Ladd: 1. Regulations as to the use of public streets and places in the course of the work 2. Requirements for safe and adequate drainage of the site. 3. A requirement that approval of the ci engineer be secured before any work, which has been commenced, may be discontinued. PAGE 2-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 4. A requirement that men and equipment be provided at the site during storms to prevent incomplete work from endangering life or property 5. Requirements for fencing of excavation or fills which would be hazardous without such fencine. On DEIR page 9-14, the following text has been deleted as follows: The Project applicant shall implement erne-e€ the following ~e mitigation measure sEer~a~ies for Impact 9-4. =,)~ne~4rrte~tg~eex~e~~~~elreel~~eea-Ce~relTf : c -' '~ TT,. ~..,. f`,..,..-..-.. Tl...-.,. vim.... ,....« ,_.F 7~.,1-.1:,. ~V7,...1_,. 1-.,, „1,..7,..7 ~L... l',.1.....,. !`......1 L'1 .7 ~o~~erre--xt~ee~l~y~a~~e-ee~rd~ied--€e~=azA~-&~-x~s.~-~ Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that the Project design has mitigated the potential impact to a level of less than significant. Implementation of this ene oF~~ mitigation measures would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant. On DEIR page 11-6, the following text has been added as follows: AIRPORTS The Ciry of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. The proposed project site is located about one an a half miles north of the SFO, and is subject to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis which depending on weather conditions can comprise approximatele 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. However these contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR On DEIR page 13-10, the following table has been revised as follows: TABLE 13-1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020 Intersection Existin WIO Pro'ect + Pro'ect W/O Pro'ect + Pro'ect AirporUMiller195101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-15.211 C-24.7 C-25.0 C-28.0 C-28.3 AirporUGrand (Signal) C-28.811 D-48.8 D-51.7 D-38.5 D-39.7 DubuquelE. Grand (Signal) A-5.71'1 A-5.7 A-5.7 A-6.3 A-6.3 GatewaylE.Grand/E.Grand Overcrossing (Signal) C-25.41'1 C-33~ 28.1 D-~ 37.4 C-26.9 C-33.7 HarborlE.GrandlForbes (Signal) B-13.71+1 C-29.1 D-54-3 50.2 D-36.5 D-41.7 Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-10.7111 A-6.7 6-34 B- 17.2 A-4.5 5-28 6- 14.2 LittlefieldlE.Grand (Signal) B-17.41'1 F-87.2 F-106.4 8-45:4 C- 28.4 8-~9 C- 30.1 S.AirporUU.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) B-16.21+1 B-2&918.9 B-X919.0 €-78~ C- 24.6 €-7~6 C- 25.0 UtahlS.Airport (Signal) C-29.611 D-50.9 E-59.2 C-24.1 C-25.2 Oyster PoinUGateway/Flyover (Signal) B-15.01'1 C-~ 29.4 C-~ 36.9 C-25.8 C-29.8 Oyster PoinUEccles (Signal) A-8.811'1 ~¢.9 B- 10.5 8-44.3 B- 12.1 B-11.0 B-14.7 Oyster PoinUGull (Signal) B-42-5 14.9111 B-4415.2 5-24:8 B- 15.2 B-15.8 B-15.8 GatewaylS.Airport/Mitchell (Signal) B-16.411 C-20.0 5-29:4 C- 20.2 C-34.5 D-35.6 AirporUSan MateolProduce (Signal) C-20.911 C-26.6 C-27.1 C-27.1 C-27.4 AllertonlE.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-15.6121 F-57.9 F-94.5 B-14.6 (1) B-15.8 (1) CaboUAllerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) B-10.11 A-9.9131 B-10.51 B-10.1 B-13.51 B-11.9 B-10.7/ B-10.5 B-13.9/ B-13.0 Forbes/Allerton (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-16.8141 C-18.6 E-49.7 C-23.6 F-90.9 ~'> Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds. (21 Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. i3> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to Forbes Ave. ~4> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology. Source: Crane Transportation Group. PAGE 2-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR On DEIR page 13-10, the following table has been revised as follows: TABLE 13-2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020 Intersection Existin W/0 Pro'ect + Pro'ect W/O Pro ect + Pro~ect Airport/Millerl95101 SB Off-Ramp (Signal) B-17.7 1~1 C-21.0 C-21.1 C-27.9 C-28.0 Airport/Grand (Signal) D-36.512> D-38.9 D-39.6 C-34.2 C-34.6 Dubuque/E. Grand (Signal) A-4.2121 A-6.2 A-6.4 A-6.9 A-7.2 Gateway/E.Grand/E.Grand Overcrossing (Signal) B-19.7121 C-24.8 0 C_'~4 26.7 C-28.6 C-29.4 Harbor/E.Grand/Forbes (Signal) C-22.112) ~9 D- 37.0 D-53.4 D-40.1 D-45.5 Project Driveway@ E.Grand (Signal) B-16.0121 A-8.5 0-46:5 D- 49.4 A-7.6 8 D-54-8 47.8 Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) B-11.5121 B-12.8 B-13.6 C-23.7 4 C-24.5 0 S.Airport/U.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) B-~418.31~1 C-~?7 21.1 C-~ 21.1 C-24.8 2 C-24.8 2 UtahlS.Airport (Signal) B-17.9121 C-20.4 C-20.9 C-23.3 C-23.7 Oyster Point/Gateway/Flyover (Signal) C-26.8121 D-54.2 9 E-6A:8 61.9 E-7~4 73.2 F-82:4 82.9 Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) B-17.8 7121 0-4:8 C- 23.7 0-54:9 C- 26.0 C-20.6 C-22.9 Oyster Point/Gull (Signal) B_1~ 16_7121 '~7 B- 19.8 0-85:6 C- 21.0 C-24.5 C-25.7 Gateway/S.AirportlMitchell (Signal) C-25.0121 F-81.1 F-133.8 0 C-28.0 C-31.4 Airport/San Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-24.6121 D-37.8 D-52.1 D-36.81 D-48-9 42.1 Allerton/E.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-20.412) F-522 F-835 B-15.1 (1) B-19.6 (1) Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) A-9.8/ B-10.1131 A-9.9/ B-10.2 B-14.0/ B-10.8 A-10.0/ B-10.3 B-14.6/ B-11.0 ForbeslAllerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) B-14.314> B-14.4 C-19.8 8 C-16.6 C-24.2 ~'> Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds. 12> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to E. Grand Ave. (3) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to Forbes Ave. 14> Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology. Source: Crane Transportation Group. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 2-9 CHAPTER 2: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR On DEIR page 16-4, the following text has been revised as follows: The development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent increase in reduced freeway Levels of Service, representing significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. Cumulative traffic impacts resulting from other anticipated projects in the East of 101 Area are identified in Tables 13-5 and 13-6 of this document. PAGE 2-10 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR 3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter contains comments on the Draft EIR (including the Partial Revision to the Draft EIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue Project. Letters received during the 45-day public review periods 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. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-1 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.2 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, November 22, 2005. B. California Department of Transportation, November 22, 2005. C. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, November 22, 2005. D. County of San Mateo, Department of Public Works, November 22, 2005. E. San Francisco International Airport, November 21, 2005. F. Alexandria Real Estate Equities, November 18, 2005. G. California Department of Transportation, December 23, 2005. H. California Department of Transportation, May 11, 2006. PAGE 3-2 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR ~`, o ~"~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~~' *~~ _ r ~ a ~~~:: •~ Governor's Office of Planning and Research °° D'~IIFDRN' •~lA~OF ~FO~a~P State. Clearinghouse .and. Planning Unit Arnoid Sean Walsh' ..Director Schwarzenegger Governor November 22, 2005 etter Susy Kalldn ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~/ E n City of South San Francisco ~O ~ 2 P.O. Box 71:1 ~ ~Q~~ 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 p~A~~1~G Subject: 249 .East Grand Avenue Office / R&D Project SCH#: 2005042121 - Dear Susy Kalkiu: The State Clearinghouse submitted the. above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on November 21, 2005, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This /~ letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements .for draft A' 1 environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. .Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State.Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely; Terry Ro s Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3Q44 .SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2005042121 Project Title 249 East Grand Avenue Office / R&D Project Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description Construction of a phased development consisting of four office/ R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 sq. ft., including approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of ancillary retail/commercial space, surface parking and a 4-level parking structure. Lead Agency Contact Name Susy Kalkin Agency City of South San Francisco Phone (650) 877-8535 Fax email Address P.O. Box 711 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco Sfate CA Zip 94083 Project Location County San Mateo City South San Francisco Region Cross Streets East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Ave. Parcel No. 015-050-440, 015-050-450 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Hwy. 101, I-380 Airports San Francisco International Railways Union Pacific Waterways San Francisco Bay, Colma Creek Schools Land Use GP: Business and Technology Park Project Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Health Services; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Integrated Waste Management Board Date Received 10/07/2005 Start of Review 10/07/2005 End of Review 11 /21/2005 ,,~,..,.. oi,...i,.. ;., .+.,+., f;~~a~ rcenlf from inmiffir•iant infnrmatinn nrnviria~l by lead aoencv. CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter A: State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research, Nov. 22, 2005. Response to Comment A-1: Comment noted. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-5 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-6 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND ROUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 TTY (800) 735-2929 ~ ~ L` E ~ ~/ ~' D November 22, 2005 P~~~NI~G Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco Letter B P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: Flex your power! Be energy ef~cie~it! SM101408 SM-101-22.14 SCH2O05042121 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project -Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it may have to traffic volume and congestion. Although Section 13, Transportation and Circulation B_ 1 addressed most of our concerns, the Department needs to review the traffic operational analysis input data to be more thorough in our review. Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. Sincerely, ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~~.. TIMOTHX,~C. SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) "Caltrans improves mobility across Califor~aia" CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-8 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter B: California Department of Transportation, November 22, 2005. Response to Comment B-1: The data requested by the California Department of Transportation was submitted to the Department upon receipt of their comment letter. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-9 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-10 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco BAY AREA Planning Division P.O. Box 711 AIRQUALITY South San Francisco, CA 94083 MANAGEMENT Letter November 22, 2005 ~~~~~~~~ Subject: 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project I) I$ T R I C T T HF CPF ~r `~ ? ~ 19'S5_-2005 ~ T ty -p J J~ 9yFACT H IE~~ ALAMEDA COUNTY Roberta Cooper Scott Haggerty Nate Miley Shelia Young :ONTRA COSTA COUNTY Mark DeSaulnier Mark Ross (Secretary) Michael Shimansky Gayle B. Uilkema (Vice-Chairperson) MARIN COUNTY Harold C. Brown, Jr NAPA COUNTY Brad Wagenknecht aAN FRANCISCO COUNTY Chris Daly Jake McGoldrick Gavin Newsom SAN MATEO COUNTY Jerry Hill Marland Townsend (Chairperson) SANTA CLARA COUNTY Erin Garner Liz Kniss Patrick Kwok Julia Miller SOLANO COUNTY John F. Silva SONOMA COUNTY Tim Smith Pamela Torliatt Jack P. Broadbent :ECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO Dear Ms. Kalkin: ~~ ~ ~ 3 ZOQS Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staff have reviewed your agency's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project. (project). The project consists of approximately X34,500 square feet of commercial space for business and technology park use, as well as approxi>ately 5,500 square feet of ancillary retaiUcommercial space. District staff recommend that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) include additional information"and analysis to provide a clearer understanding of the project's potential impacts. For example, the FEIR should include the URBEMIS assumptions that were used to quantify the emission estunates provided in the DEIR and to determine the air quality impacts of this project. We also recommend that the FEIR provide the estimate of area source emissions that the URBEMIS model calculated for this project.. Finally, the DEIR states on page 5-8. in regard to toxic air contaminants (TACs) that "the District estimates how much of a contaminant would be found in the air at a specific location." We would like to clarify that all TACs may not be accounted for in our analyses of a permit application. A comprehensive analysis should be completed as part of this environmental review process that takes into consideration those sources not subject to District permit regulations. For instance, the District's permit review and toxics analysis does not look at the emissions from diesel trucks from the project area and has no authority to regulate these mobile sources of TACs. We recommmend that the FEIR include an analysis of the cumulative impacts from TACs, including diesel emissions, in the project area. Based on the analysis contained in the DEIR, the proposed project will result in significant air quality impacts from the project individually and cumulatively. The DEIR includes Mitigation Measure 13-1 that proposes implementing a transportation demand management (TDM) plan to reduce single occupant vehicle trips by promoting non-auto travel to employees. We support requiring the applicant to implement a TDM plan and also recommend including additional feasible mitigation measures to further reduce the project's significant air quality impacts. These include, but are not limited to: requiring employers to participate in Caltiain's GoPass program that provides a1L employees with a transit pass; providing employees with a parking cash-out incentive. to reduce the C-1 C-2 C-3 939 ELLIS STREET ® SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 ®415.771.6000 WWW.BAAQMD.GOV Ms. Susy Kalkin -2- November 22, 2005 likelihood of driving alone; and charging employees to park on site. In addition to such trip reduction measures, additional mitigation measures that can reduce operational emissions from the project include: utilizing only electric forklifts and landscaping equipment in the project operations and the operations of tenants; providing 110 and 220 volt outlets at all loading docks and requiring all trucks to connect with these outlets to power their auxiliary equipment; and posting signs at all loading zones and loading docks limiting the idling of trucks in these locations to three minutes. These measures are readily available, cost-effective, and reduce criteria pollutants and TACs. We recommend that the FEIR evaluate the effectiveness of each of the recommended measures both qualitatively and quantitatively (when possible) to determine if the project's air quality impacts are reduced below the District's significance thresholds. Any mitigation measures considered infeasible should be identified in the FEIR as well as the justification for that determination. We recommend that the FEIIZ address the project's potential to increase the demand for energy and generate area source emissions from project operations. Increasing the demand for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline may result in an increase of criteria air pollutant emissions from generation of energy, as well as an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which can impact regional air quality. We recommend that the FEIR discuss energy demand of the project at build-out, including any cumulative impacts on energy use from this project and other planned projects in the area, such as the need to build "pecker power plants" to provide power during peak demand. We recommend including all feasible strategies that will reduce energy consumption and the severity of air quality impacts, including but not limited to the use of: super-efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; light-colored and reflective roofing materials, pavement treatments and other energy efficient building materials; the most mature, viable shade trees adjacent to buildings and in parking lots; photovoltaic panels on buildings; and natural light and energy-efficient lighting. We commend the City for implementing all feasible control measures in Mitigation Measure 5-1 for fugitive dust emissions from grading and construction. The District does not typically recommend quantification of construction emissions associated with construction activities, but instead bases its threshold of significance for fugitive dust on implementation of all feasible control measures listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Further, the kinds of construction equipment commonly used in development projects are primarily diesel- powered, and with continuous use, can lead to significant diesel particulate matter and ozone precursor emissions. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant and known carcinogen. Diesel emissions have also been shown to cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Acrolein, an air pollutant found in diesel exhaust, has been shown to cause imtation to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, thereby exacerbating asthma symptoms. Diesel particulate matter could therefore have acute short-term impacts and a disproportionate effect on sensitive receptors (such as the elderly, children, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants). Impacts from diesel exhaust are of particular concern because the project is located approximately 400 feet west of the Early Years Children's Center. C-3 C-4 C-5 Ms. Susy Kalkin -3- November 22, 2005 To minimize exposure to TACs from diesel emissions on adjacent sensitive receptors during construction, we recommend that the project implement the following measures: ensure construction equipment engines are tuned to manufacturer's specifications; minimize the idling tune of diesel powered construction equipment to three minutes; use alternative fueled construction equipment (CNG, biodiesel, water emulsion fuel, electric); use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; use diesel construction equipment that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; phase the construction of the project; and limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment. We recommend that the applicant stipulate the required control measures in constriction contracts. We also recommend that the FEIR evaluate the effectiveness of each of the recommended measures both qualitatively and quantitatively (when possible). Any mitigation measures considered infeasible should be identified in the FEIR as well as the justification for that determination. For more details on our agency's guidance regarding environmental review, we recommend that the City refer to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This document provides information on best practices for assessing and mitigating air quality impacts related to projects and plans, including construction emissions, land use/design measures, project operations, motor vehicles, and nuisance impacts. If you do not already have a copy of our BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, we recommend that you obtain a copy by calling our Public Information Division at (415) 749-4900 or downloading the online version from the District's web site at http://www.baagmd. Gov/pln/cega/index.asp. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Douglas Kolozsvari, Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-4602. Sincerely, Jean ' oggenkamp De uty Air Pollution Control Officer JR:DK C-5 CC: BAAQMD Director Jeffry Hill BAAQMD Director Marland Townsend CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-14 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter C: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, November 22, 2005. Response to Comment C-1: The Final EIR includes a more comprehensive analysis that shows con:~istency with Clean Air Plan assumptions, a discussion of TCM implementation at the project level, updated carbon monoxide analysis that included background levels, updated URBEMIS 2002 modeling (using Version 8.7), and additional discussion of construction exhaust emissions along with identification of additional mitigation measures to ensure less than significant impact. The CO screening analysis and URBEMIS 2002 modeling output are provided iri the Appendices. Response to Comment C-2: The Final EIR discusses the impacts of toxic air contaminants (TACs) in more detail than the Draft EIR. It should be noted that sources of the project TAC emissions cannot be fully identified at this time, because the exact nature of the site use is unknown. It is unlikely that the project would generate an amount of truck traffic that would significantly impact sensitive receptors in the area. Truck traffic related to construction activities would be of a limited duration. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, diesel exhaust is a growing concern in the Bay Area, and mobile sources are by far the largest source of diesel emissions. The guidelines also indicate that regulatory actions needed to address diesel exhaust are largely handled by the California Air Resources Board (GARB), which first identified particulate matter from diesel- fueled engines as a TAC in 1998. GARB (2005) recommends a setback for sensitive receptors of 500 feet for freeways or arterials with large volumes of truck traffic. These are conservative recommendations that do not take into account substantially reduced emission rates of future truck fleets. It is unlikely that project construction or operation activities would generate truck volumes that even approach 1/10`" of the volumes on freeways or large arterials, and therefore, one could conclude that the project traffic generation would not cause a significant impact with respect to 'TAG emissions. As construction diesel emissions are both temporary and transient in nature, their impacts would be limited. The Draft EIR identified the closest sensitive receptor as the Early Years Children's Center, located on Allerton Avenue. Truck traffic accessing the site during construction or operation is unlikely to pass by this school. A significant impact would occur if the projects' effects caused an increasf: in the chance of contracting cancer of 10 in one million or greater. The Final EIR, without conducting a detailed health risk assessment of the relatively low truck volumes that the project would cause, predicts a risk of less than 10 in one million. Response to Comment C-3: As noted on Page 2-4 of this Final EIR, revisions to the project's direct and. indirect emissions modeling found that the impacts would actually be below BAAQML) thresholds for projects, which the Draft EIR used to judge the projects impacts in terms of "a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is rion-attainment..." The Final EIR reflects this change, but continues to include the mitigation measure requiring implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. It s:~ould be noted that the City requires the TDM plan, and components of the TDM 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-15 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES plan are also identified as mitigation for transportation and circulation impacts. The mitigation measures specifically identify the components of the plan that would further reduce impacts to local and regional air quality. These include supporting employer-sponsored shuttle services to BART and Caltrain. Additional measures were added in response to the BAAQMD's comment. It should be noted that the City requires a reduction in parking capacity as described under Impact 13-8, Onsite Parking. The project impact to air quality with or without these measures would be less than significant. Response to Comment C-4: Because electrical generating facilities for the San Francisco Bay Area are located either outside the region or are offset through the use of pollution credits, pollution from offsite generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of project significance. The URBEMIS 2002 modeling includes air pollutant emissions associated with natural gas usage for a land use of the type - O~ce Park. The exact nature of the project use has not been identified, and therefore, the energy usage is unknown. A project that includes large laboratories could use considerably more energy, but unlikely enough more energy to change the impact finding from less than significant to significant. Response to Comment C-5: Page 2-2 of the Final EIR includes additional mitigation measures to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and criteria air pollutants during construction. These measures should ensure that impacts would be less than significant, especially for the Early Years Children Center. PAGE 3-16 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR Department of Public Works RECEIVED Q V L ~ CQ~~ PLANi~lPJG BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH RICHARD S. GORDON JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBBON ADRIENNE TISSIER NEIL R. CULLEN ®~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ o DIRECTOR 555 COUNTY CENTER, 5T" FLOOR • REDWOOD CITY • CALIFORNIA 94063-1665 • PHONE (650) 363-4100 • FAX (650) 361-8220 November 22, 2005 Ms. Susy Kalkin, Principal Plam~er Plaamin~ Division City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: Letter D Re: Comments on Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, 249 East Gi-and Avenue (APN 015-050-440) in South San Francisco (SCII #2005042121) We have reviewed the Draft Focused Enviroiunental hnpact Report for the redevelopment of 249 East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco and offer the following comments: The District is reiterating its position that the project site is located outside the Colma Creels Flood Control Zone and as such storm water nuioff from the site should not be directed to the Zone's Flood Control Cham~el, namely Cohna Creels. We are aware that a portion of the project site currently drains to a storm drain system that flows to Cohna Creels. It is the District's belief that existing drainage patterns must be reconfigured during redevelopment such that they are consistent with the Zone boundary. Mitigation Measure 9-4 (Pg 9-14) of this report offers two proposed mitigation scenarios for Impact 9-4: "Site Drains to Cohna Creels Flood Control Chamlel." Mitigation Scenario 1 proposes to route all stone waters out of the Colma Creek Watershed. Mitigation Scenario 2 proposes that in lieu of rerouting all flows to the southeastern corner of the project site out of the Colma Creels Watershed, the project applicant could enter into an agreement with the Colma Creels Flood Control District to be included in the Cohna Creels Flood Control Zone (Zone). Ms. Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner, City of South San Francisco Re: Comments on Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, 249 East Grand Avenue (APN 015-050-440) in South San Francisco (SCH #2005042121) November 22, 2005 Page 2 District Comment: The Zone boundary is based on the Colma Creek watershed and caiulot be modified to meet the needs of proposed projects. Mitigation Scenario 2 is not available to ~-1 the project. Mitigation Scenario 1 is an appropriate mitigation measure as it is consistent with the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. 2. The last sentence of the 2"d paragraph on Page 9-3 (Flooding) states that flood control improvements to Colma Creek since the effective date of the FEMA FIRM have reduced flooding along the Colma Creek Channel. This clai>n is based upon a telephone conversation with Kelvin Munar of the City of South San Francisco on June 21, 2005, according to footnote #5. District Comment: We believe it is more appropriate to state that there is a reduced potential for upstream flooding caused by sto>7nwater leaving the chaluzel due to upstream charu~el improvements. We do not believe hydrologic studies have been conducted to support p_2 Mr. Munar's claim. The claim should be removed or it should be noted in the body of the text that the obse>-vation is not based upon rigorous engineering study. I can be reached at (650) 599-1417 should you have any questions or need additional information. Very truly yours, ~2~~~~ Aiu1 M. Stillman, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities-Flood Control-Watershed Protection AMS:MC:CSadd F:\USERSWDMIN\CITIES\SSF\2005\249 E. G~and Ave -Draft EIR.doc G:\USERS\UTILITY\Colma Creek FCD\WORD\Review External Project\2005\249 E. Grand Ave -Draft EIR.doc F-149 (9H) cc: Mr. Terry White, Director of Public Work, City of South San Francisco Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter D: County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, November 22, 2005. Response to Comment D-1: The DEIR has been revised to eliminate Mitigation Measure 9-4 Scenario 2, as shown on page 2-7 of this Final EIR. Response to Comment D-2: The DEIR has been revised to delete the following sentence, as also shown on page 2-6 of this Final EIR. ~TDTT 1.,..,~ v,..]..,.,,,7 11 ,... ,]:.-. ,.. ,.1,~, «, ,,. fl,a „1_ ,.L.,...... ,,1 iiiia.i. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-19 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-20 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR ~~ RccEtv~~ r~ov 2 2 2aa~ PLAfV~~~~ November 21, 2005 San Francisco International Airport P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128 Tel 650.821.5000 Fax 650.821.5005 www.flysfo.com Ms. Susie Kalkin Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division AIRPORT P O Box 711 COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY South San Francisco, CA 94083 OF SAN FRANCISCO Subject: Comments on 249 East Grand Avenue/R & D Project - GAVIN NEWSOM Draft Focused EIR (SCH#2005052121) MAYOR LARRY MAZZOLA Dear Ms. Kalkln: PRESIDENT MICHAEL S. STRUNSKY Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 249 East Grand Avenue/R & D VICE PRESIDENT Project -Draft Focused EIR (DFEIR). San Francisco International Airport (SFO) has reviewed the potential environmental impacts identified in the DFEIR and LINDA 5. CRAYTON believes there are potential aviation related noise impacts on the proposed project that CARYL ITO should receive further discussion in the Noise Chapter. Furthermore, the Cumulative Projects (Chapter 16.5) does not include an evaluation of recent projects undergoing ELEANOR JOHNS review in the East of 101 Plan area. Our specific comments are as follows: JOHN L. MARTIN The DFEIR noise analysis indicates that the project site is located outside of the 65- AIRPORTDIRECTOR CNEL noise contour, and therefore, aircraft noise will have no adverse impacts. However, the proposed project site is located about one and a half miles north of SFO. The proposed project location is subject to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis, at altitudes ranging from 1,000 to 2,500 MSL using climb power settings while executing a right turn over the East of 101 area of South San Francisco. The climb power settings result in an increased noise signature for the departing aircraft. The DFEIR should more fully analyze and disclose the noise impacts arising from the development's proximity to the Airport. In fact, depending on weather conditions, the Shoreline from Runway 28 and PORTE procedures from Runway 1 comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. In addition, aircraft using the Skyline departure route originating from Oakland International Airport also directly overfly the proposed project site. E-1 Ms. Susie Kalkin November 21, 2005 Page 2 SFO also concurs with ALUC continents with respect to Height of Structures/Airspace Protection and Aircraft Noise/Overflights, as stated in their staff comment letter on the Notice of Preparation dated May 23, 2005. In particular, we concur that the City of South San Francisco shall require the project sponsor to file a FAA Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration" with the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office. In addition, to mitigate overflight noise impacts, "the proposed inhabited structures should be designed and built to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on aircraft noise events. That level should en (sic) easily achievable with standard building construction for office/R&D buildings... the City of South San Francisco carefully review the building plans for the proposed project to assure itself that the 45 dB interior noise level will be achieved, via the proposed construction design and selected building materials. " Finally, a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project should also have identified and discussed the other development projects in the East of 101 area. SFO is aware of the following proposed projects: Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse Building and Related Garden Center at 600-700 Dubuque Avenue; Home Depot Home Improvement Warehouse Building and related Parking Structure at 900 Dubuque; and Genentech Building 31 Project at 1631 Grandview Drive If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to call me at (650) 821-5347. Thank you. Very truly urs, Nixon Lam Senior Environmental Planner Planning, Design & Construction E-2 E-3 c: Ivar Satero Joe Rodriguez, FAA ADO Dave Carbone, San Mateo County ALUC CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter E: San Francisco International Airport, November 21, 2005. Response to Comment E-1: Comment noted. However, as discussed in Section 9.2- Single Event Flyover Noise of the City of South San Francisco General Plan, "Noise contours are based on average noise levels. Single event noises such as aircraft flyovers need to occur frequently and at very high volumes in order to bring average noise levels to 65 dB CNEL". The City of South San Francisco uses the ALUC's 1995 SFO Land Use Plan to establish this 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFO. According to ALUC standards, commercial and industrial uses would be acceptable within the 65 dB CNEL FAA-approved contour without any noise insulation mitigation measures. Chapter 11 of the DEIR has been revised to include comments noted in this letter pertaining to noise impacts from SFO. These additions, included on Page 2-7 of this Final EIR, are as follows: AIRPORTS The City of South San Francisco Noise Element (1999) contains existing and future (2006) airport noise contours associated with San Francisco International Airport, located south of the site. The proposed project site is located about one an a half miles north of the SFO and is subject to flights using the Shoreline charted visual departure procedure and overflown on a daily basis, which depending on weather conditions can comprise approximately 26 to 28 percent of total SFO departures. However these contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) existing and future airport noise contours. Response to Comment E-2: Comment noted. Because the project site is located within the Federal Aviations FAR Part 77 Conical Surface airspace protection area for SFO, the project sponsor is already required to file FAA Form 7460-1 with the FAA Western-Pacific Regional Office. In regards to achieving an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, Policies NO-2 and NO-3 of the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Area Plan are consistent with these requirements, in requiring that office developments, as well as noise sensitive portions of industrial buildings within the East of 101 Area, be designed so that calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime do not exceed and Ley of 45 dBA. These levels are easily achievable with standard building construction for office/R&D buildings. Response to Comment E-3: In regards to cumulative impacts of the proposed project, Chapter 16.5 of the Draft EIR notes that "the development of the Project site as proposed would contribute to a permanent increase in regional emissions of air pollutants and reduced freeway Levels of Service, representing significant and unavoidable adverse impacts". Cumulative air quality impacts were identified on Page 5-7 of the Draft EIR as being significant impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even following mitigation. However, as 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-23 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES detailed in Response to Comment C-3 in this Final EIR, and revised on Page 2-4 of this Final EIR, the Final EIR revised the project's direct and indirect emissions modeling and found that the impacts would actually be below BAAQMD thresholds for projects, which the Draft EIR used to judge the projects impacts in terms of "a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment..." The Final EIR reflects this change, and as such the Project will not have significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to air quality. In regards to cumulative traffic impacts, the three projects referenced in this letter- Lowe's, Home Depot, and Genentech Building 31- are all included in Table 3-5 on Page 13-21 of the Draft EIR, which details the peak hour trip contribution of projects within the East of 101 Area expected to be completed and occupied by 2008. For clarification purposes, reference to this table, and the discussion of cumulative traffic impacts in the Transportation and Circulation chapter of the Draft EIR, has been included on Page 2-10 of this Final EIR. In addition, Page 13-48 of the Draft EIR notes that "The City may take action on the 249 East Grand project based upon a statement of overriding considerations that was made by the Ciry Council in the process of approving the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. At that time, the lead agency determined that the City could not implement feasible mitigation measures for cumulative impacts on the U.S.101 freeway." The Ciry of South San Francisco has already determined that new projects in the East of 101 Area will have cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts on US 101, and has addressed these via the aforementioned statement of overriding considerations. PAGE 3-24 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR -~. ~~ _~- ALEX-ANDRIA RiE~E~y~~.~ ~o ~ z ~ zo~3 P~~~N~I4~ 2929 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 400A SAN MATEO, CA 94403 TEL:650-286-1200 FAX:650-286-1256 18 November 2005 Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Planning Division City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 71 I South San Francisco, CA 94083 Letter F RE: 249 East Grand Avenue Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report Dear Susy: We are writing in regards to Impact 9-2 Potential Contamination of Local Groundwater, and the subsequent Mitigation Measure 9-2 Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. The first paragraph of the Mitigation measure reads as follows: F-1 I) Grading and earthwork shall be prohibited during the wet season (October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be stopped before pending storm events. We propose that the dates and language of this Mitigation Measure be revised to match the requirements of the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.08.170 Restriction of Work During Rainy Season. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. /~ - Robert Kain Vice President of Construction Alexandria Real Estate Equities CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-26 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter F: Alexandria Real Estate Equities, November 18, 2005. Response to Comment F-1: The DEIR has been revised to delete the following sentence, as also shown on page 2-6 of this Final EIR. The deleted sentence has been replaced with text that matches South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.08.170. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-27 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-28 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY (800) 735-2929 ~ ~ (; ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ December 23, 2005 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Ms. Kalkin: A Flex your power! Be energy efficient! ~pY~ ® ~ ~~ PL~I~NiPtG SM101408 SM-101-22.14 SCH2O0504212 Letter G 249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project -Traffic Operational Analysis Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the Traffic Operational Analysis in conjunction with the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated October 2005. We have found that several pages of the calculation sheets are missing from the package. Please provide us with a complete package for our review and comment. A 95% queue analysis for intersections #1 and 4 through 10 should be included. The trips generated by this project will produce significant impacts to segments of US 101. Therefore, mitigation measures to reduce those impacts should be provided. All mitigation measures, proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring. Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. Sincerely, TIMOTHY .SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA G-1 °C¢ltr¢ns improves mobility ¢cross C¢Ziforni¢" CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-30 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter G: California Department of Transportation, December 23, 2005. Response to Comment G-1: Following several discussions between the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of South San Francisco, evaluation to determine 95th percentile vehicle queuing was completed for the approaches to three study intersections, including an off-ramp from the U.S.101 freeway. The results of this analysis were included in the revised Transportation chapter as part of the Partial Revision to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project, which was available for state and public review between March 28, 2006 and May 12, 2006. Caltrans' main concern was that off-ramp traffic does not queue back onto the freeway mainline during peak traffic periods. To provide Caltrans the most accurate queuing evaluation, a different software package was used to evaluate the three subject intersections than had been used to evaluate all other intersections in the study. Thus, updated levels of service using the new software were also incorporated into the revised circulation section. This resulted in the identification of one new intersection impact during the AM peak hour (Impact 13-4). 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-31 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-32 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 FAX (510) 286-5559 ~~ TTY (800) 735-2929 May 11, 2006 Ms. Susy Kalkin City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Ms. Kalkin: e Flex your power! Be energy efficient! SM101408 SCH#2005042121 er H 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE - PARTIAL REVISION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the 249 East Grand Avenue project. The following comments are based on the Partial Revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised DEIR); additional comments may be forthcoming pending fmal review of the Revised DEIR. As lead agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. The project's specific traffic mitigation fee should be identified in the Traffic Impact Study and the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Since an encroachment permit is required for work in the State Right of Way (ROW), and the Department will not issue a permit until our concerns are adequately addressed, we strongly recommend that the lead agency work with both the applicant and the Department to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the CEQA process, and in any case prior to submittal of a permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Travel Demand Forecasting 1. Please provide the trip generation rates applied to the project, the total number of project trips and supporting materials explaining how these estimates were developed. Page 13-21. This information is typically required for review. The Revised DEIR states that, "The traffic generation rates for approved development are based on the analysis conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance", and that "Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101 area. However, H-1 H-2 "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Ms. Susy Kalkin May 1 I, 2006 Page 2 project trip generation rates are not provided, nor is the total number of project trips identified. 2. Comprehensive supporting documentation and analysis should be provided to verify the Revised DEIR's assumption that Traffic Demand Management will reduce project trips by a H-3 sizable 9.5 percent. Please include a copy of the City's Traffic Demand Management policy. 3. Supporting documentation regarding the methodology and fmdings of the 1994 employee H-4 survey, as well as the survey itself, should be provided, as project trip distribution was based on the survey. 4. How was the two percent growth rate for traffic accessing South San Francisco from Brisbane developed? Similarly, how was the one percent growth rate that was assumed for H -5 background traffic growth along US 101 developed? Highway Operations Mitigation should be recommended for the project's impacts to the US 101 Northbound Off- ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Additional storage capacity H_6 should be provided to accommodate the Year 2008 AM Peak queue lengths at both the west- and eastbound left-turns on Oyster Point Boulevard. Cultural Resources Should project-related construction in State ROW result in an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, compliance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 5024.5 (for state- owned historic resources) and Chapter 2 of Caltrans' Standard Environmental Reference (SER) requires that all construction within 50 feet of the fmd shall cease. Caltrans District 4 Cultural Resources Study Office should then be immediately contacted at (510) 622-5458 or -286-5618. A Caltrans staff archaeologist will evaluate the finds within one business day a$er contact. More information on the SER is available at the following website link: httn://www.dot.ca. gov/ha/env/index/htm Encroachment Permit Work that encroaches onto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the website link below for more information. http: //www.dot. ca. gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 H-7 H-8 "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Ms. susy Kalkin May 11, 2006 Page 3 Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or Patricia inaurice(a~dot.ca.~ov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, ~` TIMOTHY .SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Callrans improves mobility across California" CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This page intentionally left blank. PAGE 3-36 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter H: California Department of Transportation, May 11, 2006. Response to Comment H-1: Comment noted. Response to Comment H-2: Project trip generation rates and total generation are clearly presented in Table 13-12 of the traffic section. Peak hour trip rates and resultant generation reflect trip reductions due to mandated Ciry of South San Francisco and C/CAG TDM programs. There is no TDM reduction in the daily rates or trip generation. The trip generation rates and resultant trip generation associated with manufacturing uses recently eliminated from the project site are presented in Table 13-13 (with no TDM reduction for the previous manufacturing uses as none were required). The net change in project site trip generation due to replacing manufacturing with office uses is then presented in Table 13-14. Response to Comment H-3: Comment noted. The Revised DEIR's assumption that TDM will reduce project trips by a sizable 9.5 percent are based on Alternative D: Moderate TDM Program with Physical Improvements discussed in the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Deport (April 2001). A copy of the discussion of the alternatives considered, and the assumptions made for Alternative D (ultimately adopted by the South San Francisco City Council), are included in Appendix C of this Final EIR. In accordance with the City of South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Appendix D), the developer will be required to implement a TDM Program designed to achieve a 32% mode shift. Ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements and potential financial penalties for noncompliance are included to ensure compliance with Ciry requirements over the life of the project. Response to Comment H-4: Comment noted. Results of the 1994 employee survey are included in the 2001 Supplemental DEIR referenced in Response to Comment H-3, which is available for review at the Ciry of South San Francisco. It should be noted that Caltrans was previously given the opportunity to review and comment on the TDM assumptions included in the 2001 Supplemental DEIR, but did not do so at the time of the document's adoption. Response to Comment H-5: Projections of 2 percent per year growth in traffic from Brisbane development (from 2005 to 2008) and 1 percent growth in traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not associated with South San Francisco development (from 2005 to 2008) were projected by the EIR consultant to conservatively project growth over this three-year horizon. Evaluation of U.S.101 traffic counts from available sources indicated a decrease in volumes on 101 in the South San Francisco area from 2003 to 2005. The City of Brisbane had no significant projects scheduled for completion in the immediate future that would add a measurable amount of traffic to the intersections in South San Francisco evaluated in this study. The growth rates were utilized to project a reasonably conservative level of traffic growth over this three-year horizon. Year 2020 traffic projections utilized in the analysis reflect a specific list of South San Francisco and Brisbane projects. 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR PAGE 3-37 CHAPTER 3: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment H-6: Based on the description of both west- and eastbound left-turns on Oyster Point Boulevard, it appears that reference is being made to the Southbound Off- Ramp/Oyster Point/Gateway Boulevard intersection. The 249 East Grand project would not be expected to add any traffic to either the east or westbound left turn movements on the Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approaches in either 2008 or 2020. Therefore, there would be no significant impact and no required mitigation due to the project. In addition, both Oyster Point Boulevard approaches to this intersection are City of South San Francisco controlled roadways. The year 2008 50th percentile AM peak hour queues in both left turn pockets (the requirement used by the City of South San Francisco) would be within acceptable limits. Response to Comment H-7: Comment noted. Response to Comment H-8: Comment noted. PAGE 3-38 249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT FINAL FOCUSED EIR APPENDICES Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output Appendix C - Excerpts from the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Appendix D -City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Appendix A - CO Screening Analysis i; 7: i; a `t e ~ a a ! ~ i.. f ~ ~ ~ a a a a 1, ~: 1' ~: ,: ,: 1; s is ~ != a a a ~ ! ' i ! _ a l ! ] a }~ , }' i }~ .. .. ,. _~ t t - ~- _ e ! .. 1 1 ,a E ... ~ . i }~ f 4 i, 3~ ]a S j _° j- .. .e ` i` - j 8~ ~ _~ _.., z ti - .. n9 a &RR@k0~& F fF Fi €tF {_. { I ~ 3 _ - ~ _ _ 7 ~~ i Appendix B - URBEMIS 2002 Modeling Output Page: 1 05/05/2006 3:28 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7\Projects2k2\299 E Grand SSF.urb Project Name: 299 E. Grand Ave, S. San Fran. Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 7.87 3.57 3.77 0.00 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 55.99 60.95 628.01 0.91 62.69 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMI SSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 63.36 69.02 631.78 0.91 62.69 Page: 2 05/05/2006 3:28 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 Version 8.7\Projects2k2\299 E Grand SSF.urb Project Name: 299 E. Grand Ave, S. San Fran. Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.26 3.56 2.99 0 0.01 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.12 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.00 - - - - Architectural Coatings 7.99 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day, unmitigated) 7.87 3.57 3.77 0.00 0.01 Page: 3 05/05/2006 3:28 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Office park 55.99 60.95 628.01 0.91 62.69 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 55.99 60.95 628.01 0.91 62.69 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2008 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Office park 11.12 trips/1000 sq. ft. 539.50 5,993.69 Sum of Total Trips 5,993.69 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 91,161.09 Vehicle Assu mptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.00 1.60 98.00 0.90 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.00 2.70 95.30 2.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.20 1.20 97.50 1.30 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.20 1.90 95.80 2.80 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-19,000 0.90 0.00 50.00 50.00 Med-Heavy 19,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.70 76.50 23.50 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.90 Travel Conditions Residential Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.8 9.6 6.1 Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 0 of Trips - Residential 27.3 21.2 51.5 0 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Offic e park Commercial Commute Non-Work Customer 11.8 5.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 98.0 29.0 28.0 Page: 9 05/05/2006 3:28 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Area Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2008. Appendix C - Excerpts from the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2: Executive Summary 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires EIRs to consider alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or minimize at least ane of the impacts associated with the project. The alternatives must represent a reasonable range of different planning options. Each alternative and its associated impacts, relative to the proposed project, are briefly summarized in this section. A more detailed analysis is in Chapter 6. ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT GENERAL. PLAN (NO PROJECT) In the absence of the proposed project, the existing 1999 General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan would continue to guide the East of 101 area. This alternative provides a baseline comparison to the proposed project. This alternative would allow implementation of the physical improvements considered in the General Plan and would implement already committed projects. The City would still be guided by a TDM protr am required by C/LAG, however no additional TDM measures would be required. In the absence of the additional physical improvements provided in the General Plan Amendment and the new TDM program, the levels of service and delays worsen. The No Project alternative would impact both transportation and air quality to a greater extent than the proposed project. The City's goo! as stated in the General PIan is to achieve a LOS D or better for aII intersections. With the No Froject alternative, 1~ of the 38 intersections analyzed in the East of I01 area are at LOS E or F. The impact on air quality would be increased emissions of ozone precursors because of the poor LOS and increased delay times. ALTERNATIVE B: INITIALLY PROPOSED PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS The Initially Proposed Physical Improvements Alternative focuses on a set of improvements that were initially considered adequate for the East of 101 area. This alternative represents the first attempt at supplementing the physical improvements in the General Plan and the physical improvements that are already a part of committed projects. The only TDM program that would apply in this alternative is C/CAG's program. The LOS and delay times are not improved to adequate levels, resulting in transportation and air quality impacts. Fourteen of the 38 intersections analyzed in the East of 101 are at an LOS E or F. This alternative shows only minor improvement over the No Project Alternative for delay times. ALTERNATIVE C: MODERATE TDM This alternative builds on previous alternatives and supplements those alternatives by implementing a moderate TDM program, achieving a SS percent alternative mode usage (25 percent 50V trip elimination). All physical improvements discussed in Alternative Bare implemented, excluding one intersection improvement. Implementing a TDM program achieves a much better LOS and improves delay times as compared to Alternatives A and B. The levels of service and decay times were improved in many of the intersections that were analyzed. However, za Draft Supplemental Envlronmen[al Impact Report for South Son Francisco 12 of the 38 intersections analyzed aze still at LOS of E or F, which is far from the City's goal of achieving LOS of D or better for all intersections. ALTERNATIVE D: MODERATE TDM WITH ADDITIONAL. IMPROVEMENTS This alternative builds on Alternative C by implementing alt of the improvements and the same TDM program. This Alternative also supplements the physical improvements in Alternative C with additional improvements. With alternative D, five of the study intersections are improved to LOS D or better. ALTERNATIVE E:INTENSE TDM Alternative E also builds on previous alternatives by implementing the same physical improvements in Alternative C~however this Alternative focuses an implementing an aggressive TDM program with a 45 percent alternative mode usage (35 percent SOV trip elimination). Most of the intersections analyzed in this alternative are at a worse LOS than was achieved in the Ivloderate TDM with Additional Impravements Alternative. With Alternative E, ten of the study intersections analyzed aze at LOS E or F. EN V<R ON MEN TALL Y SU PERI OR ALTERNATIVE The proposed project is the environmentally superior alternative. With the proposed project, an intense TDM program and intersection improvements will improve all but four of the 33 intersections analyzed to LOS D or better. This will mean that both transportation and air quality will improve significantly over the No Project Alternative. While biological resources have the potential to be impacted by the physical improvements in all of the alternatives, these improvements are unlikely to have a significant impact, if any, on the special status species and ecologically sensitive habitats in the East of 101 area. z.~ Draft Supplemental Environments! Jmpart Report for South San Fronclsco 5.5 ALTERNATIVE D: MODERATE TDM PROGRAM WITH PHYSICAL I MPROVEMENTS Alternative C would supplement C/CAG's TDM program using the same TDM program as described in Alternative B. However, this alternative would also use physical iznpravements to reduce congestion. These physical improvements are the same improvements that are included in the proposed project. The only difference between this alternative and the preferred project is that this Alternative implements a Moderate TDM program with a 24.5 percent SOV trip elimination, 3S percent alternative mode use and the proposed project implements a TDM pro~am with a 34 percent 50V trip elimination, 45percent alternative mode use for all new developments. In addition to the committed projects listed under Alternative A, Table 6S-I describes the physical improvements that are included in this alternative. Figure b.5-1 depicts the intersection improvements and peak period traffic volumes. Traffic operations levels of service for this alternative are also included in Table 6.7-2. Table 65-i: i?hysica[ Improvements Intersection Intersection and Roadway lrnprovements Number I Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 SB Hook Ramp. Re-stripe the off ramp right n.rrn lane to be an optional left/ right wrn Pane. 2 Bayshore (Airport Boulevard & Sster Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard. Widen EB Sister Cities Boulevard to add I additional left turn lane. 3 Dubuque Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard. Re-stripe and shift median of WB Oyster Point Boulevard to add I right turn lane making it a total of two 650' right-turn Panes lane to N B E 01 on-ramp. Re-stripe EB oyster Po'tnt Boulevard to change ane of the through lanes to a shared through-right lane. 8 Eccles Avenue & Oyster Point Boulevard. Remove median and widen east side of Eccles Avenue to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-wrn lanes for the N B approach. 9 GuII Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard. Widen NB Gull Drive to provide two Left-wrn Lanes and one through/right shared lane. i2 Airport Boulevard & Miller Avenue/ US 101 SB off-ramp. Widen 58 101 off ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a 2nd left turn lane. Re-stripe to change the existing f 01 SB off-ramp optional through/ lefr lane into a through only lane. I3 Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue. Re-stripe existing SB Airport Boulevard. right turn lane to a shared through-right lane and S8 shared through/left lane to a left turn lane. Widen EB Grand Ave to add 2 left turn lanes; restripe the EB through/left shared lane to a through Pane and E8 right wrn lane to a shared through/right lane. Provide a 3`~ left-wrn lane in the WB approach and restrict truck traffic on WB Grand Avenue. 14 Dubuque Avenue & East Grand Avenue. Widen Grand Avenue to improve the nirning radius from WB Grand Avenue to NB Dubuque Avenue to accommodate trucks. IS Gateway Boulevard & East Grand Avenue. Re-stripe existing WB Grand Avenue to add an additional left turn lane making it a total of two left-wrn lanes. 16 Forbes BoufevardlEast Grand Avenue & f-larbor Boulevard. Widen WB Grand Avenue to add I additional through lane and I additional ieitwrn lane. Widen SB Forbes Boulevard to add 1 through lane and change the a :fisting shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen 6- 16 Chapter b: Alternorives Table 6.5-1: Physicallmpravements Intersection lniersectlon and Raodwoy Improvements Number NB Harbor Way to add I through lane, I right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right turn lane to a through lane. 17 Grandview Drive & Easy Grand Avenue. Signalize intersection. Add 1 SB Grandview Avenue right turn lane; restripe EB East Grand Avenue to provide I left turn lane and I shared IefrJthrough lane. 18 Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue Widen WB Airport Boulevard to add one additional left-turn lane and restripe the existing through/left shared lane to alert-turn lane to make it a total of three left-turn lanes. Modify NB Produce Ave to bring the SB 101 to E8 Airport Sou levard traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging and weaving conflicts on EB AirporC Boulevard. 19 South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue & Gateway Boulevard. Widen EB Airport Boulevard to add one additional right-turn lane; restripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through lane. Widen Mitchell Avenue to add two additional through lanes and aright-turn lane. Widen SB Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to another right-turn lane. 20 South Airport Boulevard & Utah Avenue. Widen Airport Boulevard to add one SB leit turn Lana; restrlpe one of the existing N 8 Airport Boulevard through lanes to a shared through/right lane. Railroad Avenue. Construct a ~ lanes, 2 ways roadway within the existing UPRR right of way between Linden Ave and Gateway $oulevard Harbor Way. Widen Harbor Way to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Grand Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. -- Mitchell Avenue. Widen Mftcheil Avenue to a 4-lane roadway with parking prohibition between Gateway Boulevard and Harbor Way. With the additional improvements, four of the study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS (E or F) during the AM and/oz PM peak hours. Compared to the No Project (Current General Plan) Alternative, the following intersections improve to acceptable opezations (LOS D or better) in the AM and/or PM peak hours: • Airport Boulevard Sr Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM} • Eccles Avenue & Oyster Paint Boulevard {from LOS F to LOS B in PM) • Gull Drive & Oyster Point Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS C in PM) • Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue & US 101 SB off-ramp (from LOS F to LOS D in Aivl} • Airport Boulevard 8~ Grand Avenue {from LOS F to LO5 C in AM) • Gateway Boulevard S; East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in PM) • Forbes Boulevard 8~ East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM and from LOS F to LOS D in PM) 6- 17 r Drat Supplemenco! Envlronmentn! Jmpnct Report for South San Francrsca • Grandview Avenue ~ East Grand Avenue (from LOS F to LOS C in AM and from LOS F to LOS C in PM} • Airport Boulevard & San Mateo Avenue {from LOS F to LOS D in l'M) • South Airport Boulevard & Gateway Boulevard (from LOS F to LOS D in PM} • South Airport Boulevard & Utah Avenue (from LOS F to LOS D in AM) 6-IB „a ~~c ~ n R' (La)£OZ ~ 1{G ~1 ~ B EE {L )Z l ~ ~~ y~ 'N19tlndlpr 166[)z9st~ ~ (6CY}55a..~~ A plpl' 1 1215}LZZ'S~71< ~ `~ $ '~.. u ~ o 's o O .' m In e . - ~ ~{4 a ~~(LD9)aLZ ~i kdt1E5 {LE5}5a5-- uu ly avL©~J s < N ~ ° ~ 0 0 ~ x4 ~ n ~ p1I~ ~ ~ ~~ f~zx)Ba ~ (L81~Z05 ~~. ~~- 'a"y anhnyup +m arttalsn ~ ~~tt~ ~~ tt~r e ~ c M ~ ~ • {`a °~ ,:, G 6i $~y'S v ~ ~ ~ ~ (VVZ)ELE ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ .- (teE)afz ,r (9os)af ~ j ~~ u„a,ry ri +ID 7'Htl a,oq etl~ 3 1 * * ~y ~ I 1 Y' ItBE 0B61~ t~~*~ 15Z!)BEt ~ q N < m _~ N ~Mm d,n,:,1J M~sn,p °tlr So ~~~m ~a~~ Js~p. 1~'4k ~+{5LC)G6l f-+1-It5B)ttlL ~mqc rtl fooo)LSa -A laeo)BCet -0 + ~ ~- r ~ ~ co O ~, ~ 1 , '~ d ~ 2"p > uDUi p.'fl.l~. ~ m C u- ~° rt m ~ O N O p ~~ a _- ~. - ~ ,~. ~ N ~. U~' Jl~ ~® ~~ ., 'e-1t1~,'~'^,er,,,"~_-~l~'«.r etCT_L~ Fib r=~~,t! ~a? i :'. ~ C`... = :3~- ', ~~~+63~:' ~:i~=,~E::Atl~l:t1Ct'.laii~'6~1~~`reJ Grrl7•.':v: me r ~i ~(aEZ}OL5 AC' ~(9Vt)49 (55)fiat -~ ~~ I Ir- (Z5f}BZt~ ~ ft9z)tsy' • ~ I t~~ ~ ry ~ W t- ~ ~ v 0 N n ii 'i^y au qua, .1 ~ 1 I9a)La~ lzft)5C~ < ~i v ~ ro t- m (5)Z N ~ ~~~ ~ ~- (0}0 ( } ZBt VC ~In t1e u~~ ~~ T ~ "tea a zl v l'y ~ 199C ~ b m t ~ N V ry ~ ~i .. ~ (5r)5es db~~~ ~(99Et}Bat 14 ~ ~ rr T^l9 Ae","rra era"I,p (p}o ~~ .p t10. ~, ILSI6 13 (p5E)z0 & g `~yt~r ~ttS~ 1)QP ~ ~~ n ~ ~ h p . tiaa ~ r a o` ~' (ZZa)EOL "rly _i ~IZL£}f9 ~yanl~,quU (5)t~ (6Ct)a5E---~ ~c} ~ Iozet}ofL~ c r~ S o o '~ m ~ ~ m v m~ vp uwhu Pl~ 16gtz (9tCtkZC LL~1< ~"- "~ °c ~ m P+ W ~~~a 1vltlfi)11St ~b j~t4 +~~{9Lf15fiu ~ l[' 19tZ)LLt I M iuq+aFi 'P^3tl °~j~~ ` _ ~~~~ ,LOG 8--~ ~~ t4~• C v ro ~n r+ N ,~ ~ ~m v ,~ N ~-~-19z1BL ~Z~ ,r~cLBO)xtz ~"y apra CJ ~ I 0 6N ~ yn 0o a x ~ c~ ~Y l , Ie^au,p t I (ICt19Z~ ~ 8 m n G N O e ~ m ~ ,~ ~-isatlpe5 ~~' ~' ~ h~ISSEIZSZ I~ ~ 4 J< ~(9t)Ot .. {bCB11ZtZ~J~ T"re a ~Iy's ,* .~ I5)B~^~ ~ rrv, ~ 6 ~ N o Q s ~ .'s(est)sse ~ ~ ~-(LLt1LLC I [1 yyr ~ lr(VZB)5BV ~ ~ ytl un,t,rv'S T^ eronsp Ita)9at~,1~1 ~ 1 [pt* O~ a ~ ~ ~ s. m w v v m ~ ~ k~ IE)Z ~. + ~ 1~ (t94)S9 T"re nns{y 6 ~i g ~r .... ~ ~ (LZ}BE /~,~ ~ 'ijT' ~I9ZB)B5E ee,ay,p ~ (f)1 ~ HBu'J ~I (9}Z'f1' 3 6 ~' 6 {t9z-t5 ~ ~ ~ ~ M t '1 ~~ Appendix D -City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance 20.120.010 Chapter 20.120 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Sections: 20.120.010 Purpose. 20.120.020 Applicability. 20. 120.030 Program requirements and standards. 20. 120.040 Required measures. 20. 120.050 Additional measures. 20.120.060 Submittal requirements. 20.120.070 Review and approval process. 20.120.080 Waivers and minor deviations. 20.120.040 Amendments. 20.120.100 Monitoring and enforcement. 20.120.110 Appeals. 20.120.010 Purpose. The specific purposes of this chapter are the following: (a) lmpiement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new non-residential development, and the expansion of existing non- residential development, pursuant to the city's police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. (b) Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the city of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. (c) Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. (d) Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. (e) Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new non-residential development. (f) Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter. (g) Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. (Ord. 1300 § l (part), 2001) 20.120.020 Applicability. (a) Area. The requirements of this chapter shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city. (b) Projects. The requirements of this chapter apply to all nonresidential development expected to generate one hundred or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) 20. 120.030 Program requirements and standards. Table 20.120.030-A establishes the specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more trips or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode use for all projects is twenty-eight percent and applicants who propose projects with increased FAR would be required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The requirements are described in the subsections below. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) (South San Francisco 5-02) 7 5 8-1 Ll 20.120.030 Table 20.120.030-A: Applicability of='1'UM requirements Trips Generated by Required Percent Annual Survey Triennial Financial Project or Project Measures Altemative Report Penalty for Requesting an FAR Mode Use Non- Bonus Re wired com liance Project with > than Yes 28 Yes No No 100 average dailytrip Project requesting an Yes See Table Yes Yes Yes FAR bonus* 20.120.020-C * Refer to Table 20.120.30-C for FAR bonus requirements. (a) Required and Additional Measures. All projects generating one hundred or more trips shall prepare and submit a preliminary TDM plan that includes all required measures and additional measures necessary to achieve a minimum twenty- eight percent alternative mode use, as prescribed in Table 20.120.030-B. Refer to Section 20.120.040: Required Measures and 20.120.050: Additional Measures, for a description of the measures. Table 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements Required Measures for all Projects Generating 100 or More Trips. Additional Measures Chosen by,~ipplicantto Meetthe Required Alternative Mode Use (at least one measwe re aired of all rojects) A. Bicycle Parking, Long-Term A. Alternative Commute Subsidies/Parking cash out B. Bicycle Parking, Short-Term B. Bicycle Connections C. Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service C. Compressed Work Week D. Designated Employer Contact D. Flextime E. Direct Route to Transit E. Land Dedication for Transit FacilitiesBus Shelter F. Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools F. Onsite Amenities G. Guaranteed Ride Home G. Paid parking at Prevalent Market Rates H. Information Boards/Kiosks H. Telecommuting I. Passenger Loading Zones I. Reduced Parking J. Pedestrian Connections J. Other measures as determined by the Chief Planner consistent with (B) below K. Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking L. Promotional Programs M. Showers/Clothes Lockers N. Shuttle Program 0. Transportation Management Association Partici ation 75 g-15 (South San Francisco 5-02) 20.120.03 0 (b) Projects Seeldng an FAR Bonus. Projects seeking an FAR bonus shall prepare and submit a preliminary TDM plan that includes all required measures, any combination of additional measures, and any other measures that have a demonstrable effect of reducing the number of trips generated as determined by the chief planner and as approved by the planning commission. Table 20.120.030-C prescribes the maximum allowable FAR under these intensity provisions and Table 20.120.030-D prescribes the required alternative mode use based on the FAR. Table 20.120.030-C: Maximum Allowahle FAR General Plan Land Use Classification Base FAR Maximum FAR with TDM Plan* Maximum Permitted FAR in the General Plan* Office 1.0 2.3 2.5 Business Commercial 0,5 0.9 1.0 Hotels 1.2 1.8 2.0 Business and Technology 0.5 0.9 1.0 Park Coastal Commercial 0.5 0.9 1.0 Hotels 1,2 1 8 2 0 * T4.o ..1 ..1.. _Ll__L _ --- b~=....u. Y~...• ~~~Q~==~„~~ a ,,,aaL„uin moor area ratio (rAK) (Table Z.2-1 in the South San Francisco General Plan). Column two indicates the maximum floor area ratio permitted with the TDM bonus. Column three indicates the maximum permitted floor area ratio with the combined TDM bonus and design bonuses. (c) Alternative Mode Use Required for an FAR Bonus. The alternative mode use required for bonus FAR under these intensity provisions is prescribed in Table 20.120.030-D. (South San Francisco 5-02) 758-16 Tahle 20.120.030-n: Alternative Mode Use Requirements for an FAR i;onus General Plan Land Use Requested FAR Alternative Mode Use Classification Required (Percent) Office 1.10-1.59 30.0 1.60-1.99 36.5 2.00-2.30 45.0 Business CommerciaUCoastal 0.51-0.69 30.0 Commercial or Business Technology Park 0.70-0.80 32.0 0.81-0.90 35.0 Hotel (In either Business 1.21-1.49 30.0 Commercial or Coastal Commercial) 1.50-1.69 32.0 1.70-1.80 35.0 (d) TDM Plans Required. Pursuant to Section 20.120.060 and Section 20.120.070, all projects shall submit a preliminary and final TDM plan. Said plans must demonstrate that, upon implementation, they will achieve the required alternative mode use. (e) Guidelines. TDM guidelines regarding the range of alternative mode use achievable from each additional measure are available from the planning division. (f) Monitoring and Enforcement. Projects will be monitored pursuant to Section 20.120.100 to en- sure the alternative mode use is achieved. Applicant shall be required, as a condition of approval, to reim- burse the city for costs incurred in maintaining and enforcing theT~DM program for the approved pro- ~eCt. (Gird. 1300 ~ 1 (p QT L), 21101) 20.120.040 Required measures. All non-residential development shall implement the following measures: (a) Bicycle Parking, Long-Term. The appli- cant shall determine the appropriate number of bicy- cle spaces based on the required alternative mode use and subject to review and approval by the chief plan- ner. Bicycle parking shall be located within seventy- five feet of a main entrance to the building and all long-term spaces must be covered. Long term bicycle parking shall be achieved by providing one or more of the following measures: (1) Parking in a locked, controlled access room or area enclosed by a fence with a locked gate; (2) Lockers; (3) Panting within view or within one hundred feet of an attendant or security guard; (4) Parking in an area that is monitored by a se- curity camera; (5) Providing fixed stationary objects that allow the bicycle frame and both wheels to be locked with a bicycle-locking device or the bicyclist supplying only a lock and six-foot cable. (b) Bicycle Parking, Short-Term. The appli- cantshall determine the appropriate number of bicy- clespaces based on `uie required alternative mode use and subject to review and approval by the chief plan- ner. Ifmore than ten short-term spaces are required at least fifty percent must be covered. Bicycle parking shall be located within one hundred feet of a main entrance to the building. Security shall be achieved by using one or more of the same methods used for securing long-term bicycle parking. (c) Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Ser- vices. The designated employer contact shall be re- sponsiblefor matching potential carpoolers and van- poolers by administering a carpooUvanpool matching 7J 8-I 7 (South Sau Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) application. The application shall match employees who may be able to carpool or vanpool. (d) Designated Employer Contact. Each appli- cant shall designate or require tenants to designate an employee as the official contact for the TDM pro- gram. The city shall be provided with a current name and phone number of the designated employer con- tact. The designated employer contact shall adminis- ter carpool and vanpool ridematching services, the promotional programs, update information on the information boards/kiosks, and be the official contact for the administration of the annual survey and trien- nial report. (e) Direct Route to Transit. Awell-lighted path or sidewalk shall be provided utilizing the most di- rect route to the nearest transit or shuttle stop from the building. Refer to Figure 20.120.040. (f) Free Parking for Carpools and Vanpools. The preferential parking spaces shall be provided free of charge. (g) Guaranteed Ride Home. Carpool, vanpool aiid transit riders shall be provided with guaranteed rides home in emergency situations. Rides shall be provided either by a transportation service provider (taxi or rental car) or an informal policy using com- pany vehicles/and or designated employees. (h) Information Boards/Kiosks. The desig- nated employer contact shall display in a permanent location the following information: transit routes and schedules; carpooling and vanpooling information; bicycle lanes, routes and paths and facility informa- tion; and alternative commute subsidy information. (i) Pas~eit~er Lvadi~g ui3ne~. PBSSeIIger load- uig 2oneS for CaiYooi and v anpool drop-o~ Shail be located near the main building entrance. (j) Pedestrian Connections. Safe, convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from the project to surrounding external streets and, if appli- cable, trails. Lighting, landscaping and building ori- entation should be designed to enhance pedestrian safety. (k) Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Park- ing. Ten percent of vehicle spaces shall be reserved for carpools or vanpools, with a minimum of one space required. Such spaces shall be provided in premium and convenient locations. (1) Promotional Programs. The following promotional programs shall be promoted and organ- ized by the designated employer contact: new tenant and employee orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Spare the Air (June -October); Rideshare Week (October); trip planning assistance-routes and maps. (m) Showers/Clothes Lockers. Shower and clothes locker facilities shall be provided free of charge. (n) Shuttle Program. Establish a shuttle pro- gram or participate in an existing program approved by the chief planner and subject to any fees for the existing program. (o) Transportation Management Association (TMA). The applicant shall participate or require tenant to participate in a local TMA, the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) or a similar organization approved by the chief planner, that pro- vides ongoing support for alternative commute pro- grams. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) 758-18 20.120.040 ~ ~ v d -_- cS ~, c.~ d ~~ 758-1y ~~ ~~ w ~~ i i u r ,~ ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~- (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) 2o.lzo.oso 2Q.120.050 Additional measures. The chief plamier and the planning commission shall determine the appropriateness of each addi- tionalmeasure chosen by the applicant. See also Sec- tion 20.120.070: Review and Approval Process. (a} Alternative Commute Subsides/Parking Cash Out. Employees shall be provided with a sub- sidy, determuied by the applicant and subject to re- view by the chief planner if they use transit or com- mute by other alternative modes. (b) Bicycle Connections. If a site is abutting a bicycle path, lane or route according to Figure 20.120.040, a bicycle connection shall be provided close to an entrance to the building on the site. (c) Compressed Work Week. The applicant shall allow employees or require their tenants to al- low employees to adjust their work schedule in order to complete the basic work requirement of five eight- hour workdays by adjusting their schedule to reduce vehicle trips to the worksite. (d) Flextime. The applicant shall provide or re- quire their tenants to provide employees with staff gered work hours involving a shift in the set work hours of all employees at the workplace or flexible work hours involving individually determined work hours. (e) Land Dedication for Transit/Bus Shelter. Where appropriate, land shall be dedicated fortransit or a bus shelter shall be provided based on the prox- imity to a transit route shown on Figure 20.120.050. (f) Onsite Amenities. One or more of the fol- lowing amenities shall be implemented: ATM, day r_~__~ ~ a ti•..t_..,._a care, catc~oiia, 1-uuiteu foou Jel Vl~+e eStfiuii~uurcu~, dry cleaners, exercise facilities, C.UnVel-llen(.:G rGLdll, post office, on-site transit pass sales. (g) Paid Parking at Prevalent Market Rates. Parking shall be provided at a cost equal to the preva- lentmarket rate, as determined by the city based on a survey of parking in North San Mateo County. (h) Telecommuting. The applicant shall provide or require tenants to provide opportunities and the ability to work off-site. (i) Reduced Parking. In accordance with Gen- eralPlan Policy 4.3-1-8, reduced parking, consistent with projected trip reduction identified in the pre- liminary TDM plan; may be permitted subject to ap- proval by the planning commission. (j) Other Measures. Additional measures not listed in this chapter, such as childcare facilities and an in-lieu fee that would be negotiated in a develop- ment agreement with the city, may be implemented as determined by the chief planner and approved by the planning commission. Once the planning com- mi551o11 approves the preliminary TDM plan, the chief planner may recommend additional measures either as part of the final TDM plan or as part of the triennial review process. (Ord. 1323 Exh. B (part), 2003; Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) 75 $-20 20.120.050 758-21 O ~ V ~ > L ` d tiS ~' 'U El. '~"J "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u i ~ y :~' ~ L'x0 H o ~ 9 ~ ~ w v .o :~. !'S W Y ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~, ~ . ~. ~~~~ ~ '~ a (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) av. i w.vvv 20.120.060 Submittal requirements. All projects generating one hundred or more trips shall submit the following information in conjunction with the development application: (a) Preliminary TDM Plan. (1) A completed checklist of the required meas- ures pursuant to Section 20.120.040. (2) A completed checklist of the additional measures chosen by the applicantpursuantto Section 20.120.050. (3) A description of how the applicable alterna- tive mode use will be achieved and maintained over the life of the project, iilcludii~g, but not limited to, the trip reduction goals targeted for the various TDM measures. (4) TDM Site Plan. All applicants shall submit a site plan that designates, if applicable, TDM design elements including: (A) Ea~ternal: preferential parking areas, paid parking areas, bicycle connections, bicycle parking long and short-term, location of onsite amenities, passenger loading areas, land dedicated for transit facilities and bus shelters, direct route to transit, and pedestrian connections. (B) Internal: showers/lockers, information boards/kiosks, ATM, dry cleaners, day care, conven- ience retail, post office, cafeteria, limited food ser- vice establishment, exercise facilities, onsite transit pass sales. (b) Program Costs. All projects shall be re- quired to reimburse the city for program costs associ- ated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM pro- icuilivr u+ie ro'ect.'Ord. 1300 ~ i'^ai~~ 200i` ~~ p J l y ti' h J 20.120.070 Review and approval process. The review and approval process for this chapter is set forth below. (a) All Projects. Approval of a conditional use permit is required for all non-residential develop- ments subject to the provisions of this chapter. (b) Required Findings. In addition to the re- quirements of Chapter 20.81: Use Permit Procedure, the planning commission shall make the following findings: (1) The proposed TDM measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the pro- posed use or mix of uses and the project's location, size, and hours of operation; and (2) Whether the proposed performance guaran- tees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by this chapter will be achieved and maintained. (c) Actions By Planning Commission. Prior to approval of a use permit, the planning commission may: (1) Reject the preliminary TDM plan based on the fmdings in subsection C and require applicant to resubmit preliminary TDM plan; (2) Approve a lower FAR bonus based on the findings in subsection C; or (3) Impose conditions that are necessary to achieve and maintain the target alternative mode use. (d) Final TDM Plan. The applicant shall modify the preliminary TDM plan and submit the fmal TDM plan including additional conditions imposed by the planning commission as part of the building permit process. Prior to receiving a building permit, the final TDM plan shall be reviewed and approved by the chief planner to ensure all conditions imposed by the planning commission have been addressed. (Ord. 1300 § .l (part), 2001) 20.120.080 Waivers and minor deviations. An applicant may request a waiver or minor devia- tion from the requirements of this chapter. The chief planner shall review such requests and determine whether a partiCUiar requireiucnt iS not appiiCavie tv a par cular non-residential deveiop~tient or whe`dier it may be reduced, or an alternative and equivalent measure substituted. Prior to approval of a use permit the planning commission shall impose conditions that are necessary to achieve and maintain the target al- ternative mode use. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) 20.120.090 Amendments. A use permit modification shall be required when a major change-a change is the addition of ten per- cent of the building area or a change in use classes (South San Francisco Supp. No. 4, 7-03) ~]$$-~72 20.120.090 that triggers a ten percent or greater .increase in trips-occurs. (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) 20.120.100 Monitoring and.enforcement. All projects are subject to :an .annual aurvey. Applicants seeking an FAR bonus are also subject to a triennial report and penalties .for noncompliance. (a) Annual Surveys for All Projects. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the annual survey is to report on the compliance of a project with the final TDM plan. (2) Survey Preparation. The .city or .the city's designated representative . shall prepare -and administer the annual survey of participants in the TDM program. (3) Survey Specifications. The survey shall be used to monitor all projects. The survey administrator shall use ..statistical: sampling techniques that will create a :ninety-five percent confidence in the .findings. (4) Survey Report. A report of the survey findings shall be presented annually to the planning commission and the city council. (b} Triennual Reports for Applicants- Seeking an FAR Bonus. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the triennial report is to encourage alternative mode use and to document -the effectiveness of the final TDM plan in achieving the required alternative mode use. (2) Triennial Report Preparation. The triennial report will be prepared byan independent consultant, retained by city and paid for by applicant, who will work in concert with the designated employer contact. (3) Submittal. The triennial report shall be submitted every three years on the anniversary date of the granting of the certificate of occupancy for a building or facility. (4) Response Rate. The information for the triennial report shall be obtained from all employees working in the buildings. All nonresponses will be counted as a drive alone trip. (S) Required Alternative-Mode Use. The triennial report shall state whether the nonresidential development has or has not achieved its required percent alternative mode use.'If the development has not achieved the required alternative mode use, the applicant shall provide an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached and a detailed description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the required alternative mode use. Any and all additional measures must include an implementation schedule by month. (6) Historical Comparison. The triennial report shall include a comparison to historical responses on the survey and if a .mode share .has ..changed significantly, a detailed description as to why the mode share has changed. (7) City Review. The chief planner shall review all triennial reports. If at anytime the reports indicate failure to achieve the stated policy goals, those reports will be submitted to -the city council. (8) Penalty forNoncompliance. Ifafterthe initial triennial report, the subsequent triennial report indicates that, in spite of -the changes in the final TDM plan, the required alternative mode use is still not being achieved, or if an applicant fails to submit a triennial report at the times described above, the city may assess applicant a penalty. The penalty shall be established. by city council resolution on the basis of project size and actual percentage alternative mode use as compared to the percent alternative mode use established in the TDM :plan. (9) Application of the Penalty. In determining whether a financial penalty is appropriate, the city may consider whether the applicant has made a good faith effort to achieve the required alternative mode use. If a penalty is imposed, such penalty sums shall be used by the city toward the implementation of the final TDM plan: (Ord. 1300 § 1 (part), 2001) 20.120.110 Appeals. In accordance with Chapter '20.90: Appeal Procedure, an applicant may appeal an administrative decision to the planning commission, and if the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the planning commission, the applicant may appeal the decision to the city council. ~JSB-23 .(South Sen Francisco Supp. No. 9, ]0-04)