Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEast of 101 Area Plan Final EIR 06-1994<. ~ ~. ~~_ ~.._ r.,:-:,; . Jti _i...;r.'. .. I- ~,~trA~ } ~ d~ , ~b '~ ; ,; ;; ~ ~ Fin~l~ EIR ~. ~. , :: . ^ .~ ., \ ~~ I City of South San Francisco 2 ~ June 1994 ~ ~ . ~._ i EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN Final EIR City of South San Francisco June 1994 SUBMITTED BY BRADY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHTTECTS IN ASSOCIATION WITH BAY AREA ECONOMICS BARYON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. DAMES & MOORE WILSEY & HAM ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN East of 101 Area Plan Final EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Purpose and Content of the EIR 1 B. Environmental Review Process 1 C. How to Use This Report 2 2. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 5 A. Project Under Review 5 B. Alternatives to the Project 5 C. Environmentally Superior Alternative 6 D. Significant Impacts ~ E. Significant Unavoidable Impacts 8 F. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8 G. Summary of Environmental Effects 9 H. Summary of Environmental Impacts 17 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 39 4. LIST OF COMMENTORS 85 S. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 87 A~pendicies A: Revised Circulation Tables and Figures A-1 B: Summary of Area Plan Goals and Policies B-1 C: Mitigation Monitoring Program C-1 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Content of the EIR This report is the second of two volumes, which together constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the East of 101 Area Plan. The first volume consists of the Revised Draft EIR (DEIR), dated January 1994, which includes a description of the environmental setting, the proposed Area Plan, an evaluation of Area Plan alternatives, an assessment of the potential effects associated with the proposed Plan, and a set of recommended mitigation measures to avoid or reduce such effects. This second volume consists of Responses to Comments on the DEIR. It includes an introduction, a summary of issues, environmental impacts and mitigation measures, revisions to the text of the DEIR, a list of commentors on the DEIR, verbatim copies of comments, and responses to those comments, a Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Revised Draft EIR and this Response to Comments document have been prepared according to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a Program EIR. The CEQA Guidelines state that a Program EIR may be prepared for a series of actions that are related "in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program:' This Program EIR identified general City and countywide effects of the Area Plan. It is assumed that individual projects in the study area would receive detailed environmental evaluation during project review and in project EIRs. B. Environmental Review Process According to State law, lead agencies are required to consult with and respond to any comments received from public agencies having jurisdiction with respect to a proposed project, and to provide the general public and project applicant with an opportunity to comment on a Draft EIR. This document EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTRODUCTION has been prepared to respond to those comments received and to clarify any errors, omissions, or misinterpretation of discussion or findings in the DEIR. The DEIR was made available for public review in January 1994. The CEQA-required 45-day review period ended February 22, 1994. Copies of all written comments received on the DEIR are contained in this volume. Letters are assigned numbers, indicated in the right margin. Responses corresponding to the numbered comments follow each letter. The DEIR was published as a "Revised" Draft EIR because it followed an initial Draft EIR on the Area Plan that was published in August 1993. The Revised Draft EIR is a complete document that supersedes and is in no way dependent on the original Draft EIR, and the Revised Draft EIR was made available to the public and to all parties that had received or commented on the original Draft EIR. Comments received by the City on the original Draft EIR have not been responded to in this Final EIR, and such responses are not necessary since the Revised Draft EIR is an entirely new, self-contained document. This FEIR and the Revised Draft EIR, combined, will form the complete Final EIR to be considered by the City as a full disclosure of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. Approval or disapproval of the proposed Area Plan will occur in public hearings before the City of South San Francisco. C. How to Use This Report This Final EIR is divided into five chapters, which are outlined below, plus the Appendix, which contains supplementary material. Each of these sections has its own purpose and serves, in conjunction with the Draft EIR, to aid the reader in fully understanding the project and its implications. Chapter 1, Introduction notes the purposes and contents of the Final EIR, the environmental review process, and the contents of this report. Chapter 2, Summary of Analyse and Conclusions briefly describes the project and contains two summary tables. Table 1 lists the potential impacts of the proposed Area Plan, recommended mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid such impacts, and the level of significance of each impact after mitigation is identified. Table 1 has been revised and updated from the table shown in the Summary chapter in the Draft EIR to reflect changes that 2 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTRODUCTION resulted from the public review process. Other data and detailed discussion of the project are contained in the Draft EIR. Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR presents a listing of changes to the text of the Draft EIR that resulted from responses to comments raised during the public review period, as well as minor editorial changes for correction and clarification. Chapter 4, List of Commentors includes a list of all agencies and individuals who submitted written comments on the Draft EIR. Chapter 5, Comments and Responses includes a reproduction of each letter received during the public review period and responses to each comment. 3 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN TUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter has been reprinted from the DEIR, and includes all analysis and conclusions contained in the DEIR Chapter 2. In this chapter, type represents new or revised text added in this Final EIR. ;ee~t type indicates text that has been deleted from the DEIR. A. Project Under Review This Program EIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan. The East of 101 Area Plan has been developed by the City of South San Francisco to recognize the unique quality of the 1,700-acre area of the City east of Highway 101. The Plan will guide development within the Plan area in a manner that improves its image, benefits the community, generates employment, and allows for development within a framework of continued public access to San Francisco Bay. The Area Plan contains goals and policies specifically targeted towards a variety of issues, including land use, design, housing, circulation, noise, geotechnical issues, public facilities, recreation and natural resources, and overall implementation and financing of the Plan. This EIR examines the potential significant adverse impacts of implementation of the proposed Area Plan, and recommends measures to mitigate these impacts. B. Alternatives to the Project CEQA Guidelines require that a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed action that could feasibly attain the objectives of the action be described and comparatively evaluated. A summary of the goals of the Area Plan are provided in Appendix B. The Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Chapter analyzes the preferred alternative, known as the Directed 5 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Growth Alternative, along with the Planned Commercial Alternative, the Market Oriented Alternative, and the No Project alternative, as required by Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines. The first three alternatives are subjected to equal levels of analysis, while the No Project Alternative is assessed qualitatively. Chapter S evaluates each alternative according to the goals of the East of 101 Area Plan. Though most of the goals are satisfied equally through each alternative, goals related to land use, public facilities, and noise are not satisfied equally. This analysis is expanded in Chapter 5. The identified Environmentally Superior Alternative, as required by CEQA, is the Directed Growth Alternative of the Area Plan. This alternative would' fulfill the goals of the Area Plan and would avoid potentially significant impacts of the other alternatives related to noise exposure, land use conflicts, and school facilities. The No Project Alternative was not selected as the environmentally superior alternative primarily because it would allow a greater density of development in the East of 101 Area. This higher density of development would create additional impacts to traffic, air quality and municipal services. In addition, residential development, which would be allowed in the Planned Commercial land use category, would create impacts related to land use compatibility and noise and would conflict with the San Francisco International Airport. Each of the alternatives is discussed in detail in Chapter IV, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. In addition, the alternatives and their associated impacts are compared in Table 4. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative Of the alternatives considered, the Directed Growth Alternative would generally result in the lowest degree of environmental impacts and is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Through this alternative, potential impacts of the other alternatives related to noise, hazardous materials, land use, and schools would be avoided, since this alternative does not include residential component. The Planned Commercial and Market Oriented Alternative were not selected as environmentally superior because they would have significant impacts related to these issues. They would also create significant, unmitigable impacts on more segments of Highway 101 than the Directed Growth Alternative. Although the environmental differences between these alternatives are not great, the Directed Growth Alternative would have the lowest level of impact. 6 ]UNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS The No Project Alternative was not selected as the environmentally superior alternative primarily because it would allow a greater density of development, thus allowing more impacts to occur with respect to traffic and air quality. Further analysis of these impacts can be found in Chapter 4. Residential development would also be allowed under the current Planned Commercial land use and zoning category. This use mould cause impacts to municipal services, land use, and noise and could conflicts with the San Francisco International Airport. In addition, the Area Plan provides for protection of the East of 101 Area's biological, recreational, and visual resources while increasing opportunities for employment and services for area employees. These improvements would, most likely, not occur without implementation of the East of 101 Area Plan. D. Significant Impacts Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, signi~€isal~adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. CEQA requires in-depth analysis of those environmental factors that are identified as having a potential to be adversely affected by the project. Implementation of the Area Plan has the potential to generate environmental impacts in a number of areas. Impacts in the following areas would be potentially significant for either the Area Plan or for the two Area Plan alternatives without the implementation of mitigation measures, but would be reduced to a less that significant level if the mitigation measures noted in this report are adopted: • Land Use Compatibility • Transportation and Circulation • Noise • Hazardous Materials • Municipal and Retail Services • Open Space and Recreation • Air Quality • Cultural Resources 7 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS E. Significant Unavoidable Impacts The Directed Growth Alternative, which is the preferred alternative for the Area Plan, would have significant unavoidable impacts on air quality and circulation. The Plan would result in substantial air quality impacts primarily because it consists of land uses which would attract vehicle trips to the area, and would not include planning for high-density, mixed-use, community- oriented development patterns. Significant unavoidable circulation impacts. of the Directed Growth Alternative would occur only on two southbound segments of Highway 101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard, where Level of Service would reach "F" in the PM Peak hour. Both the Planned Commercial Emphasis and the Market Oriented Alternative would also have significant unavoidable impacts on air quality and on Highway 101. Their significant unavoidable air quality impacts similar to those of the Directed Growth Alternative. The Planned Commercial and Market Oriented Alternatives would both result in Level of Service F on Highway 101 on the northbound segment between Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard in the AM peak hour, and on three southbound segments between Sierra Point Parkway and South Airport Boulevard in the PM peak hour. The Planned Commercial and Market Oriented Alternatives would also have significant unavoidable impacts on schools~a~~"~~ : _ ~ { ~!1~i~The only feasible way to mitigate against these additional impacts would be to prohibit residential development in the East of 101 Area, as would occur under the preferred Directed Growth Alternative. F. Implementation of Mitigation Measures This EIR identifies specific mitigation measures that will be considered for implementation by the City of South San Francisco. The mitigation measures that are found to be necessary and feasible, and thus adopted by the City of South San Francisco, will form the basis for the Mitigation Motitoring Program to be implemented by the City in accordance with State law. The proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program ' 8 ]UNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS G. Summary of Environmental Effects The following summarizes the environmental effects of implementation of the Area Plan and the two Area Plan alternatives. Because the Area Plan implements a set of policies that were developed to alleviate potentially "" significant impacts, the Plan itself lessens several potential envirorunental impacts. The particular Plan policies that are applicable to each impact category are summarized below. A full summary of the Plan policies are contained in Appendix B. A summary of the potentially significant impacts is provided following this section in Section H. 1. Land Use Compatibility __ a. Land Use Policies and Regulations. The Area Plan and the two Area Plan alternatives would be consistent with applicable land use policies and regulations since most policies and plans would be superseded by the Area ~. Plan. b. Land Use Compatibility. No residential development is proposed under the Directed Growth Alternative and the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative only allows residential development on the Koll site, which is physically separated from the rest of the area, so potential incompatibilities between residences and industrial land uses would be avoided. However, the Market Oriented Alternative includes residential development on the Shearwater site, which could conflict with surrounding industrial development. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. `~~ c. Conflicts with Fisting Development Potential. Because most of the East of 101 Area is already developed, and many vacant sites are surrounded by so much existing development that their future use can be assumed, the future land use in most areas is given and no drastic changes in land use are proposed. Allowed densities in the East of 101 Area would generally be reduced by the Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives. However, the new maximum densities would apply only to new construction. Where existing buildings on a site exceed the allowed Floor Area Ratios, they may be replaced or remodeled with buildings up to the existing Floor Area Ratios on the site, provided that all new construction meets all other policies of the Area Plan, therefore no impact on parcels that currently exceed the allowed densities of the Plan would occur. In addition, Area Plan policies LU-617, LU-~~, and LU-~5 allow for an increase in Floor Area Ratio for provision of child care 9 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS services, retail services, or implementation of an approved Master Plan .,:«. ........: .............:...................::rkiY.: •:i.;.:................ 2. Visual and Design Factors Development policies of the East of 101 Area Plan outline streetscape and entryway improvements, in addition to visual and design criteria for development in the area. With these improvements and design criteria, no significant impacts are anticipated. 3. Population, Housing, and Employment a. Population. The Directed Growth Alternative includes no new housing units in the East of 101 Area, therefore, no new residents would be added to the City's population and no significant impacts are anticipated. The population growth rates of the Planned Commercial Emphasis and Market Oriented Alternatives would be less than those experienced in previous years, therefore, the City should be able to keep up with demand for new municipal services, with the exception of schools, as addressed in the Municipal Services section. b. Employment. The East of 101 Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives would permit substantial new employment generating development in the East of 101 Area. However, employment growth rates are expected td be less than those experienced in previous years, and the City will be able to~ keep up with the need for new services with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures in the Municipal Services section. c. Housin .The Directed Growth Alternative would add no new housing units in the East of 101 Area and the Koll site would be eliminated as a potential site for low- and moderate-income housing, as it is currently shown in the City's Housing Element. disable--mitigation t:~'rxncluded itt this EIR requires ' :`iri: .:<.:;>: ;,,>t,';:'~:-~"~~~`~~` t~ . o ~ t::ho ~ ~:. the Ci would have adequate sites to meet its fair share of affordable housing. The Planned Commercial Emphasis and Market Oriented Alternative would both increase the City's overall supply of housing, and provide increased housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. 10 '- )UNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS d. Jobs/Housing Balance. The Directed Growth Alternative would add no new housing, but it would add new employed residents to the region by adding new jobs. It is expected that this alternative would eliminate the County's small existing shortfall of jobs in comparison to its number of employed residents and no significant impact would occur. The Planned Commercial Emphasis and Market Oriented Alternative would add employed residents to the area in addition to increasing the amount of jobs. The number of jobs created would exceed the number of employed residents added to the City. However, those employed in the East of 101 Area would also most likely live in the region. It is expected that the County's small existing shortfall of jobs would improve, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. 4. Transportation and Circulation .r a. Regulatory Setting. All alternatives, including the preferred Directed Growth Alternative, are consistent, to the extent possible, with the regulatory policies and plans that apply to the circulation and transportation system. b. Roadway System. Under the buildout level of development, the transportation system impacts are so severe that improvements to the ~- ~ transportation system alone cannot mitigate them. Policy LU-14 requires the City to track development for its impacts on the roadway systems. Once the available capacities are used, the City will re-evaluate East of 101 Area land • use categories, and may limit the future development of the area. Acceptable levels of service would be exceeded at several intersections in the East of 101 Area and on the southbound segment of Highway 101 with eve opment o the three Area Plan Alternatives. "~} . ... . .:. ~. •:?ii•::•isi.::::,~,4::::i•.•:+ii'{v.:iM•::::: hiv::n•:.{•...:nr:•:•:•itii~::i•:ii};:•~/~{{•:4:v...•..:...x...v::::::..:irli si~i::::iiii•:::i<:•:•\w\slit'i,::i<iiti~:•:•:~i:?tO:i~$i:::iii•: Y•Y.•i summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. 11 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN )UNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS c. Parkin . With the policies of the Area Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated to the parking situation in the East of 101 Area. d. Public Transportation. Policies of the Area Plan encourage the development and expansion of public transportation services in the East of 101 Area, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. e. Bicycle Facilities. Policies of the Area Plan encourage the development of appropriate bicycle facilities in the East of 101 Area. With implementation of these policies, no significant impacts are anticipated. f. Pedestrian Facilities. Area Plan Policy CIR-10 will provide for the continued improvement of pedestrian facilities in the East of 101 Area. With this policy of the Area Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated to the pedestrian facilities in the East of 101 Area. g. TSM Programs. Transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) programs are to be encouraged in the East of 101 Area, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. 5. Noise a. Increased Noise Levels. Increases in noise related to traffic would not be considered significant because these increases would not be greater than 3 dBA. In addition, the highest noise level increases would ocxur on streets which are currently commercial and industrially oriented, therefore no significant impacts are anticipated. As the East of 101 Area is built out, each construction project will introduce short-term construction noise into the vicinity immediately surrounding the area. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. b. Noise and Land Use Compatibility. Commercial and industrial uses of the Directed Growth Alternative would generally be compatible with the noise level throughout the East of 101 Area. Offices may require noise attenuation to provide acceptable interior noise levels depending upon the use and the location of individual buildings and such attenuation is required under Policies NO-1 through NO- Residential development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis and Market Oriented Alternative would create a potential conflict with noise levels in the East of 101 Area. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. 12 ~- JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 6. Hazardous Materials ~' Agencies such as USEPA, CaIEPA, and the RWQCB enforce State and federal laws governing the generation, clean-up, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. With ~<these regulations ir:_ ~~ .Ji::.~;0.':tii':.,:e ~ vlf :!K$?.}.. tit%•: :: t\^:'v'• },tititi ~~` ..rx.,.~.... :.rr;~... ~~~ no significant impacts are anticipated ...,. Vii". `~ :~...''`').:;:"":`~`.E`<~>~'; In addition the East of ,_,_ 101 Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives would not introduce activities involving the use, production, or disposal of hazardous materials. t of residential uses on the Koll and Shearwater sites through the Planned Commercial Emphasis and the Market Oriented alternatives could possibly expose people to hazardous landfill gases. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. 7. Geotechnical Factors a. Fill Soils. Policies GEO-1 through GEO-4 of the Area Plan require geotechnical investigations and specific construction and structural requirements for buildings on fill. With these policies, no significant impacts are anticipated. b. Landfills. Policy GEO-4 of the Area Plan addresses requirements for developments on landfill sites. These requirements include systems to alleviate impacts related to gas which is produced by the decomposition of buried garbage. Implementation of these policies will result in no expected significant impacts. _ c. Slopes. Policies GEO-7 through GEO-9 of the Area Plan provide for reduction of potentially hazardous conditions related to slopes, therefore, no significant impacts area anticipated. 13 E:AS'r OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS d. Liquefaction. Policy GEO-10 of the Area Plan requires a geotechnical investigation of those areas prone to seismically-induced liquefaction. In addition, Policy GEO-11 requires development to be built in a manner which removes the significant risks associated with liquefaction. With implementation of these policies, no sigtificant impacts are anticipated. e. Seismic Hazards. Policy GEO-12 of the Area Plan requires that buildings and infrastructure be built according to the appropriate Uniform Building Code. In addition, Polices GEO-13 a~~' ~a~TT-provided for i~g-mod-appropriate setbacks from existing faults, therefore no significant impacts are anticipated. S. Biobgical Resources Development under the Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives would ba, located on previously disturbed sites. In addition, the Area Plan provides fpr protection of sensitive resources under the r .... .....:<x.: Element, therefore no significant direct impacts are anticipated Policy #~~~f the Area Plan requires the incorporation of design elements and on-site buffers which reduce indirect impacts to sensitive resources, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. 9. Ini&astructure a. Water Svstem.' The Califortia Water Service Company has adequate water supply to meet the increased water demand. In addition, Area Plan , Policy PF-1 requires the provision of adequate water supply for East of 101 development through required water line improvements. Water conservatign is also incorporated in the Plan through Policies PF-2 and PF-7. b. Sanitary Sewer. Improvements to the sewage transport system are provided under Policy PF-3 of the Area Plan. In addition, the City will be required to accurately determine the capacity of the Sewer Treatment Plant and improvements are required as necessary through the Area Plan. c. Storm Drainaee. The East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Therefore, increased runoff from new development would be able to be accommodated by the existing drainage system. In addition, Policy PF-8 .:.. .. a~~#~~ "..... ~-~#~ ~ ~ ~' ~"~# ~~ "~ 'specific drainage concerns ;• }::':.:'•::: i:::{:i;:}?¢;~iii}::i:::. ;: YFi:iiFijiii4.1Y?ii ~':5'F.'::. ifF iYFn¢:}titiflvFii:~~r'i:::i:; v?S: e~# the Shearwater Site and the property west of Colma Creek. 14 '- JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS d. Communications. The communications requirements of the East of 101 Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives are expected to fall within the " ~ capabilities of Pacific Bell and no significant impacts are anticipated. e. Utilities. The utility requirements of the East of 101 Area Plan and the a _ Area Plan alternatives are expected to fall within the capabilities of the utility companies and no significant impacts are anticipated. 10. Municipal Services a. Emergency Medical Services and Fire Protection. Development under the East of 101 Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives would decrease the service provisions of the Fire Department to unacceptable levels unless additional service provisions are made. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. b. Police Protection. Development under the East of 101 Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives would decrease the service abilities of the Police Department to unacceptable levels unless additional service provisions are - made. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. ~- ' c. Schools. With no residential land uses proposed as part of the Directed Growth Alternative, schools would not be impacted by future development. Residential development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative and the Market Oriented Alternative would result in impacts to the existing educational facilities and transportation systems. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. d. Child Care. The policies of the Area Plan encourage the development of child care facilities in conjunction with employment centers, therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. e. Libraries. With no residential land uses proposed as part of the ... Directed Growth Alternative, libraries would not be impacted by future development. 15 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Residential development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative and the Market Oriented Alternative would result in impacts to the existing library system. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. f. Parks and Landscape Maintenance. The City of South San Francisco requires that developers of new residential projects mitigate the impact of their development through either dedication of new park lands or payment of park in-lieu fees, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. g. Infrastructure Maintenance. Development under the East of 101 Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives would impact the Engineering Department's ability to provide adequate infrastructure maintenance unless additional service provisions are made. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. 11. Open Space and Recreation The implementation of the Directed Growth Alternative will not impact the current availability of open space and recreational facilities because no residential uses are proposed. In addition, the Area Plan provides for the continued provision of an open space network along the San Francisco Bay shore. However, development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative and the Market Oriented Alternative would generate demand for new park and recreation facilities. For- a summary of these impacts and '~, potential mitigation measures see Section H below. 12. Water Quality a. Construction. Area Plan Polices PF-10 ^~a~~~rwould prevent impacts associated with run-off and erosion during construction of projects in the East of 101 Area, therefore, no significant impacts are expected. b. Operation. Changes in runoff water quality within the project area would not significantly change the water quality in the local creek and drainage channels since these water bodies already drain heavily urbanized areas. In addition, only shallow groundwater is recharged by surface runoff and the closest domestic groundwater wells are located west of the site and use deeper groundwater. Changes in land use will likely result in fewer areas that surface water can percolate into the groundwater as a result of increase buildings and more paving. Therefore, changes in the water quality should not result in any significant impacts. 16 ]UNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 13. Air Quality Grading, scraping, and other earthmoving activities would generate fugitive dust emissions which would be likely to generate particulate concentration in excess of State or federal standards. Without mitigation, this would be a potentially significant impact of construction activities, potentially causing short-term violations of the State or federal PM,o standards. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. The East of 101 Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives would have the potential of increasing emissions and would significantly contribute to regional pollutants such as NOx and VOC, which would exceed BAAQMD standards of significance. In addition, the Plan would not be consistent with all of the planning guidelines presented in the 1991 Clean Air Plan or BAAQMD Guidelines and would result in exceedances of BAAQMD significance criteria. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. 14. Cultural Resources a. Archaeological Resources. Construction and disturbance allowed by the East of 101 Area Plan and the Area Plan alternatives could disrupt undiscovered cultural resource sites in the East of 101 Area. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. b. Historical Resources. Demolition of historic buildings in the East of 101 Area would constitute a significant loss of historic resources, if these buildings are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. For a summary of these impacts and potential mitigation measures see Section H below. H. Summary of Environmental Impacts The following four tables summarize and compare the environmental impacts of the alternatives assessed in this EIR. Information in the tables has been ordered to correspond with environmental issues discussed in Chapter 4, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Tables 1, 2 and 3 list impacts and mitigation measures for each of the three major Area Plan Alternatives. They are arranged in three columns: (1) environmental impacts, (2) mitigation measures, and (3) level of significance 17 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS after mitigation. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one measure may be required to achieve a less than significant impact. Table 4 compares the impacts associated with each of the four alternatives. For a ~mplete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures for the Area Plan alternatives, please refer to Chapter 4. 18 F { }• T.~',' +.~A~' ~ .::; ~# a ~. ~. o ~ .~ O °1 H G7 A ~~ °~° °~' ~~ w ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `' o :: ,~~ .t~ +.M1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;. r r ~ w ~ O Fly ~ 1~ . : f'.v {+. • i 11 vv. .~ { O ~ /(Qp~~ ~ w ~ • T rl ~ ~ o ~ . ~?~' r vi r.:i 4•• v ~, ~ N .Fi N N ~ . { •• . VV~ WQ a~~ .+..~ s ~ N ~ q m :<~.~ ~ ~~< r „ ~ W xi •`•' r ~~ ~ ; .~ z ~ o ~` ' ' '3 ~ '9 .'~' ~< ~ O 'o ~ a ae N G7 c ..:.`' ~~ ~ o ~ a '~ ~, ~ ~ ~ o ~ a~~ w a~y ~ ~:.;:{ .~g ~~a~ ~ ~QQj ~ Q ~ o ~ ~N ~~"" ~ Q o ° s a ,a A ~ii Z ~ ~.~ ~r ~~' ' .~ .. ~ ~~'o ~ ~ ao ~y O C^ r'' ~ ~ a ,~ J a C .~ L+ ~ Z M ~ H s~ ~ o ~ a i °' ,~ .~ ~ ~~ Ago ~ ~ q ~ai~''..< ''~~~~ : : " ~ ~"~~ A a .d ~ "'aka aa~ A ~ ~ C7 e Vl ~ a U ~ $ ~ ~ . . .: : ~ ,..,,,rA a4 U ~ M ~ ~ ~ a . ° ~ v a K< .. ~ y,~{~~~ U a ° ~ w .~ II ~Qp OD o~ ., a° ~a z U '~ .~.~ °r~~a ~z~ O oao ~~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ h .~ V :.~. H m ~ .. ~ °~ ~ ~ 3P y ~' ~ ~ a a ~ a~ 3 't, a r }~ ., ' ' ~ ~ ~ a ~ ; < .. w Y ~ O a p 0, . r.:~:+~' f s.. ~ '~ a+ Q y ~ ~~'~ ••, f f '~ ~ a '~ a~ ~ 'v~ .. •f U ~ p ,, U M ~ w V~ ::r 2 ~{ ~ ~ ~ " ~Cp~ O ~ ~ ry ~ ::gin Y • ~ + O a~ of Ca ~+ .w q ca ,, ..s ~ « •v:.F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o i ~ ` '' L1 'O O q ~ ee ~. O« O F n ~. . ~e ~' °' ,~ ~ a °' w ~ w ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ «. ~ a~ a .• ao~ ~.~ :{ ~:~ i~~ ~o ~o ~a `~ 'o C1 a ~ ~ ..., ~ ~v ~ C ~ :i # ~ti: `.. { ~ ~ ~~++py ~7 '~+ '~ Qy ry aS y ~ ~p vl ld ~ ~'. N ` G R ., ~ a .~ ?~ •.}.... ~~a a ~~a Q d a ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ::~:::.,: W ~ ~,, ~o ~~" a ~ " a ~: ' •> x gy c ~ ~ :~ s; ' v : :`~ . f H ~ .a _ ~ ~ p, 'a O e~ m :, ~ W ~ ~ OFj ~ :.{ ~ Q~ A~~ ~~ ~ d Q ::> ' . ~> `• •• ~a ~~a ~~~a u ~p a N !~ ~oo ad~~ W D .. ~ ~ O o ~ U w•-~ F ~ M y a~ O .. z~ ~~ H ti .~ rl H w a ~~ s H ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ N •~ o+ ~ ~ ~O{ ~ ~ V ~ •~ {y ~~+j ~ .wow yy c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 b '~ ~ a ~ '° 1.~1 .7r ~ '~ ~ ~ M ~ g" a ~ .. b '~ ~ , a ~' o c , '~ ~ ~~ ;, a $' b °a' ~ ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~ •~. , g~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ob ~ •v ~ ~ ~ ~ .0 y ~ ~ ~ '° ~ An ~ ~ ~; ~ .~a •~ °~ ~ .~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ r '~ w y •'b' S ,,,,, a ~, • ~ .q ~ . ~ x G ~ ~ •y ~ er„ ~ ~ a) ~ y a o ~b o 3 ~ •v ~ ~ ~ Y V `°~ ~ U;~ ~ ~ ~~a a c _ •~~j ~i ~ o a ~~y °~ ~' ~ .~a" ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ /4 ~' A~ fi ~ Q 6) A~~ 0~ w t~ A~ ~ ~ A •~:s , n pp A ~ O ~p A~i3:. ~ Q v A a ~ o ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~'a •~,. ~ ~ Q ~ 3 . . ~ . a a a M ~ •d .rr ~ a W ~ y ~ ld ~ ~ W F °' :~ a '° a ;; ~ o 444 ~ ~ ° ~ ~ '' ~ «. ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ a r, ~ v~ ~ ~ _ ~ . ~ b a K ~ ~ ~ 3'~ 3G '~o Q •v ~ ~ •° 3 ~ '~ F.V ~ ~ a ~ ~i ~ a ~ ~ ~ •h ~ ~ ~ ~i •v a ~ ~ ~ •v, . .~ o . 3> y ~. .o :°^ .o ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ °i ~ ~ ~ ~ b b ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a i r8 •v ~ ~~•v ~'~z~ a a ~ ~ ~ .tea w yj ~ ~ ~ _ ~ •~ ~ ~b o~ 'y ~ ~ N ~ ~~e~~ ~ .~+ cd ++ ~ P. a . •~h ~ " ~ .~... ~+ • ~ :~ ~ ~+ ~ S ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ GL 3 w ~ O ~ ~ a ~b ~~ r. N ., .~ v :~: ~< ~': <> H ~~' a° o a ~z ~~ d U 101~.1 A fi ~ F':: I~ \ . a~~ ~z~ ;:~: daw o ~ ~~,::: E{~ O '-' d ~z~ ~~h H ~~ a ~ ~~ ~' a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, q g~ ~ ra~ 'o . ff .o~•~ o a eo ~ ~ o o ~ ~^o '~~ ~ Q .~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q~q ~ ~ 0 '°93 ^ ~i $ q ~ NN .~ ~ '~ ~ ~~~ e '~ ~ ° O a ~ ~ 4 00 w~~ ~ ~ y ~~~~ c,,~ ~ ~~ .~ ~b~v o3 0'~ ~~ c ~v d~3~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ d ~ .. ~ '~ o b 'O ~ ~ p~ ~~ „ J ~ ~ .~ ~ ~v Q ad F~ ~ 8 8 ~ ,a '~ °' ~ a ~ r, ~ w ' ~ r~ ~ a g' V .~ ~ '0 ' ~ ~ v ., ~~"i q ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~~t P~.i ~ O ~ b ~ A ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~i o ~ d ' ' a ~~'.o a m. °c~ b °' a• o, '~«.!? ~';; ~.~ ~$ ~.o~eo~~~'Ua°.38~ p~.~ ~~'~ ~ ~ mow ~~~''~ ~ ~ 8 ~"'~ . ~~ ~ 8 ~ ., a+ ~ ~o ~ a c `~ ~ ~ ~~ __ ~ ~ O ~ ~ >w ~~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ` A .a ~ ~ ~ UI y a~ ~b u «~ N _. Zao a~H ' ~ d O o ~ U w.,~ O F y ,~-- ~ ~ t a ~o ._ z~ h v . _ ~'. •- ~::., ~~ ~.::~ ~~i <: ~', C. ri ~ ~, ., m.. .. ~ °~° ~~ '° a .~ ~ ~ 'o ~ O '~ ~ ~ O y w ao ,~ b ~oa ~e°~v .~~o~p ~ a ~ ~~ '~ ~ Y °M,a`°wu Q ° o, o ~.ey ~ ~ i y a ~ .d~ ° . 00~ N ~ ~S {~ ~ ~ O .d '~^7' ~ ' ' ~ W q S~ ' .9 ~ 's ~ 3 u a a .Y'J ~p a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pa ~~:~ Y~~'~ o ~~ s.s Opp ~ ~ '~ ~ ~~ Q o ~ ~~b '0 ~ o `~ ~ ~~ o~ ab „ ~ 0 ~~ ~ ~i ~ :~ d Fn y 'q ~ (~ ~„ O •~ o d ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~~ W .~C.' .CI a~ '~ `~ ~ ~ 'iX. •~ ~~ a~ ~~ a ~ ~ .a a 61 R f:7.~ °~D ~~~a ~~ soar ~a~' ~1 j c~bfC A ~~ A A a ~ ~ Q ., U x A v~: ' N OG G U~~ Ga'O :~ oU ~ '~ y co'0 N U 4~ ~ z~ ~ c , J".. U ~ ~3 ~r7 U ~ p < o v a ~ ~,~ o ~ o ~x ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ w ~ •~ o '~ 6 ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ O ~ o .~ ~ o„z .~ ~ ~ ~ O ~w o.y'_' •~ ~ • r ~ ~ N ~ Qv ^ ~ ~ s ~ A U b. UI° a ~r, w u a .~ ~y H ti a° o~ U z U "~" " ~~~ z~ doGO ~~~ 0 ~~ z ~~ N :; F Z w y a •q a ~~ rl W o ~ ., O °/ H ~ v, ~~ a a a ~ ~ w w V ~;,~ .d h a ~ ~ $~ :` .0 ~ O y w O ,; s $ :: .~. ? Y. ~ ;f ~ ~ EO y Q . .; l v f a'~ ~ O .!3 Q .~ a m ~ ,..: {.... ~ ~ w ~~'~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ .. f ~ ~ ~~~ °.3 u a ~ a .~~ ~ ~ ~ wr ~.,.. r~:: a$ ~ 8 ~ ~ x l ~: '~~ M1' ~ ~ c d ~ ~ °' U ~:>~~ U~ 3 x x~~ a« ~b ~~~ ~~ ~ w a~ .~}~`~ w ~ <:~ g .., ~ $:f . ~ ~~~ W ~~ ~ O ~` `? C .-+ w ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ a ~ ~ ~ q `` g $ .. ~`~ c 3 g' o 'a web ~~" ~ ~ .d A '$ o .. ti ~ ~ a~Q c°; '~ o~ ~~ " a ~ ;~ i ~ q $ ... {;., y O ~ a ~ TJ ~ 0 .0 q y •+ ~ O y rl ~ ~ O ~i '~ w 0 OC ~~ p ~ Q f r ~ ~~:~ ~ .~ .sx 1C ~ a ~ ~ $a rr ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~*~' a ~ V a i : , ~ U U .~ ai . x ~qq r'a ~n ~~ ~~ ,~D h ._ ~ao a~r; a U _.. ~ z o ~ U w-P -- ~~aa~ ~~ aka • . ~ O ~. ~~11 WI H .~,~ •~~ r,: ~ :~: .C. ' ~. . ~P.y,~ N Z ... n .. ~ w C ... ~ ~~ ~ ~ fi .~ s 3 ~O WWW ~ Y`. r• •: •i ~ y 9 M/ ~ :} i~Y ' ~ Y ~ ~ p V V ,~yy ~' M ~ a b n ~ .; i ti , ,f ~; l~. i. ~' fyy ^~ • a ~ 9y~{ :~ ~ ~yy g. ~ ~ ~ y ~ .O ~ e ~ 'vi ~ ;'3 Y ti f...~y ``Y.~~.. ,1... ~ ~~s~'a~a~> a~m'° ~ { 1 FI ~ Ia1 ~ y 4 :S:; v.;;:1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' Y~~ M1~~~~{ f U g ~ N Ir yr .o , a. ~ ~ ,, ~ O 'C ~ 'I~ -. ~s' ~ d d ' 'O .~ ' 8 ~ ' ~. a z 8 a N1 at Q a O '~ ai •. C ,.. ~ ~~ w ~ 'm ~; ~~ ~> x~;~:~ . W •~ ~ ~ '~ a ga °' a ~~'a a i W ~ o M •. 3... •a f .~ 1 ~I V ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ }. .ti~f .ry. .. :. 3 ~ a ~ ~+ w .• y::. •` '~ ~ } t F ~ ~ O ~~ ^~ Q ~^ ~ ^+' V 'd ld i # Q ey' w F+ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti j ~~~'''yyy~~r . {}$ ' ' ti ~'' : . : A .~ f• ,; >. , . ~ z ' ~ ~ ~.i a a a ~~^y .W rr^~- a a° O ~ U ~~ ~ U ~_ ~~ ~z~ ~6 _ao ~~ ~~ z ~~ 0 O .~ v N H Y ~~ w ~ ~ h ~ ° ~ r+ u . p,~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ «~ .~3 ~~s G~w a ~ rah .~~~ ~.~:~~ ~~B~O .~'•~ ~~~ O ~ S ^ M ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ •Ti ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ° N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ F CLi ~ l /r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~U ~ A~ ^ ~ C~ N ° M ~ '~'~U~ ~ ~ ~ y $ V ~'a'w$ ~ ~ ~ o'w ~ ~ N ~ ~' ~+w ~ ~. W 'a ~'w ~ ,~"1 ~ g'~ ,q '~ . w 8 ~~~ °~g. ~ ~ ~'° u ~~ ~~ •a'~~ ~ ~ ~o ~ a.bv Ol .a~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ao ~~v a '~ u]~ '~ ~• ~ a~ ~ o a~ .~ ° «. ~~ .~ ~ ~ a~i o o ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ a W ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ w w ~ u7~. ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~0 ~3 8~.~vo ~Q ~a G ~ .~a ~ Q. .~, ~ $ ~ ~ ~ qa~~.~ ~,°d ~3'O~' LOS ~w' ~ ~ N 7~~ ~ d ~ a~A '~ d ^J 'a°'S °~ C ~ ~ ~ O ''' d ~ N ~~ 'pd Pr~~' a•~ j A4 ~ ~ ~i !~'O ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a . + r+ ~y b y a°i a~ ~~ r ~' ~ ~ ++ ~ ~~ ~ .~, ~ a ~ moo ~a~ '~o ~~.. ~~'°~ ~$a~a ~~~ ~~~ ~'~~ ~a~ U a ~'~ ~$ D a'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ay p'~~ a"~~ ~ a~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ l A ~a~ ~a~ ~a ~~ a~ a ~ o aw .~ .C a~' ._ ~ao a~~ a~ ~ '~~ ~ao w-~ O F ._ a~ ._ . ~ o ,, z ~~ .~ f Y >: i.;,.,: __. _. ~ ~ N w °? ., H d~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ °,~ ~ !z ~ ~ c a~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ .. d'~ a~ ~ ~~~ ` ~ w3 2 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ao ;~ ~ ` ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~a ~ ~ ~ A ..~ ~~~ ~.b.~ ~ ~.~ ~~5 .d ~ y ~ r O .La' "' a`" ~~~ Ewa . ~~~~ ~ °a '~"o ~ ~ ~ .Xy{ W L3 ~ ~ '~ a ~ y ~ w ~ C .~ ~ ~ U ~ '~~' .J1 U ."1. ~ ~ ~ ~ Q' ~ ~ r /C ~~~o ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~, ~ . ~~ ~o ~ ~ S~~ ~~a~ ~3 aa~~ . Q. o •~ ~ ~ ~ 3 0 ~ °~°~ ~~ .'~. H ~ ~ .~. cy ~ • .~ +~+ ~ p N ~ ~ ~ a ~~.~ ~ ~ .~ a ~ Q ~ 'v ~ 0 ~~ ~ w .~ ~ o ~ ,. ,., A ~ ~ a~ ~@ ~ ~ o 'O ~ a~i ,~ .~ ~ C+ ~ ~a ~ ~ N ~ ~ -~, ~ >, i0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~,~~ ~~~ .~~ ~~~ ~~~~ o ~ a a ~~ a ~~ ~~~ ~ 8~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ «:~ w a~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a3 ~w II a h N ., a u°i a d O oa w 0 z z 0 U z~ 6 0 .~ N H d ~ ~ ~ a .., 2~ .~~ ~~ M g a ~g' V ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~Q~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O. a g a ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~yy ~°~j ;~ ~ ~ ~ Vp ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 0 '~ ~ •o a0 ~ OD ~ m • ~ e0 ~ is .~ w OO ., •v ~ ~ MO ~ •~ ~ •~ ~ .~" ~ d4 ~ K ~ .~~. O ~ .~ H 'D O O H ae .+ G w v '~ '~ O , • ~ > p •~ °~ iD ~' •~ O N 7 T O ~ O0 ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ,3 .~ ' a • t~~ p 00 ~ Q O ~ ~ Q + a~ ~ p . a . yQy ~ .~ ry .d ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ OD ~ ~ y V ~ «~+ F U y p t~ {~ ~1 ~ O 'y ~ ~ ^~' O ~ •O ~ ~p p .iW~. ~.' ~Q •i+ Q •~ .~ „ ~ p N d OU .~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q •Li ~ ~ .~ R$ ~ ~~3 a 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q~ ~ 8a 3w ~ ~::~ u~•e •v ~' a a 3 ~~ aw~ a~~ •~ ~ M ,~az~ 8 a•v~~ '~°~•~ ° ~•~ ~w aa~ ma ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~a o~ ~ ;~ ~~~~' .'~ ~ 41 ~1 ~~o a U o ~ U w ~ ~ ~ h a~ ~o z~ ~~ __ D .~ N a Ey ~~ ~x V~ ~w., ~ 'C ~ ,d O ~ °° O y w KO ~ p ~ $ ~Z dD ~~z ~ Q c~~ p ~' C '~ 00 ~ ; ~ ~w ~ d ~ ~+ +'~ '~ «+ b8.~a y . e~ S°a w~~ ~ ~~ a+ ~ °~ ~ `~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ei°n Q w ~'° w ~ ~ .Zq ' o' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~' C ~ w ~ O v `~ 8 '~,~~ o~ ~ ram .v pap c~'8 'a > °o~ ~ ~ ,o o~v~i~ . °~ .oc~ a~.~ w x ~~ ~ ~A o ~~~ ° ~~ i ° o ~ 8 chi '~ a 8 ~ ~ w ~ ~ u ~ o o -~ ~ 'ti '~ A ~ Q ~ ~ ' U~v. ~ U'S U... p4 Uc~~ ~oZ~ U~ o U a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ w•~ ~o ' o~° b' ~ a ~ a ~ ,S y ~~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~o ~~a e ~ 3 ° a o ::. ~ o p ~ .~ ~ „ ~ •o ,,, z ~~ ~a.a ~~~ [~] ~y 6~ .° o+ ..n t~~ ~ ~ ~ F. Q h U G7 y U~~ ~ ~ a ° a i U 3 ~± W~ ~Q QU 6~ N -~ a° ~° az yyy~ O H a~z~ ~~6 O Sao °~~ O F ~ ~ r~~~ M H a ~~ O ~ O ~ ... Y O Y ;Y i fi. `. W .w~ ~ ~ ~ it s ~ ~ O ~ j • •'z: Q . L f Q ~ W ~~ s ,~ ,~ ~~ .~ s~ , ~ ~ yy l' d •~ ~ w G O a ~ ~ a$~ a ~ ~:~ ~ f ~'~~~o~ ° ~~a ~ ~<~ ~~ • ."~ ~ d~ a a ~ ~~a° ~~~ ~U ~ ~ ~U.~~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ w O ~ ~. ~ ::•: 3 ~ ~ ... fn ~' '~ ~€ ' ~ ''" ~ O G, p4 ~ ~ a`i u ~ . ~ ::r'° f , w~ y ~ ~ .. O ~ c ~a''' Z j~ w Y ~ww ~ e w 0 ~ .. p, a~ s ~~~ ~ : .{ J O a ~ a ~ r f• C ~ ~ ~n V . ~ ~ ~ ~ Q C ^" .~ • V :. ~ ;~ o..J,?t; . :• . •f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y o ° ~ ~ a .. • pct,, ~ `° ~ ~ .o ~ a dab x ~ o f~ y ' v iS~~ Qoa >~~ ~ o ~ ..,.~ g ~ f ~: $ ~ . .... O~ °' M~ o~~ x . ~ ~ ~ ~~~ x ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ oo U :~ :< U O U ~ a !~ rr^~I a h 4 O a H a o d U r. O~~ ~~ ~~M _ o~ a ~o ._ z ~' h -- ~ ., .~ M F d M ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ g ~ , oa ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.P3~~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ... .~ w a~ ~..~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 'p Q ~ w ~ h ~.. ~ ~ a0 ~~ ' ' ~ '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~0 N d O •~ .~ j '`a 'Cppl ^ OO r ~ .~ 6) ~ h "a Iw ~ ~ ~ • ~j '~ w ~ +- ~Q q ^" " O j O ++ OD b M `g at TJ ~i 0 t0 i 7 ld ~" .S~f ~r ^ ooC3 ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~a ~ .~ ~ .~W M~j'p ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ Q Q y ~3 p ~+ ~ V"~ ~ ^ a O G M ~ ~ ~ 'Q ~" i~ Q ~ Q~i ^ }~ ~ ~ ~ 0 `^ ~ ~wi ~ ~ W ~ ~i ~~1 ~ N ~ ~ ~ QQ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ems' ~ ~ O V Y Y O ~ M 7 7 ~ a, ~ .~ ITV ~"1 Z ~ a M • ~ • ~"~ • Z~ ~ ° ~ $ p. ~ ~ ~ q a o a ~ ~w ~ ~ ~ ¢a ~ v ~ o ~~ ~v ~' 0 ~ a °a~ ~~ ° .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .a ~ a ~, h a ~ ~ ~ ~~ a+ ~ ~ ~ F~1 ~i •~ Q~ M ~ ~+ C H C ~ ~ .'~ ~ 00 ~ ... ~g ~ `"~ ~~ ,~, ~ O ~" u Q '~ O ~ ~+ ~ a ~ f/~ r., Tq3 ~ h ? ~, y ~ ~ pp~~ ~ C ~"' a~ ~ C g+ a~ {O~ j ~ ~ ~ N 'cV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "' : i ~ W Q ~ ~ ~ r ~ o . -~ ~~s~ ~ ~ a'~ ~a '~ ~ ~~~, ^ y y~~-yam" ~s~ ~ _ ci za~~ z ~ d ~~ ~° ~ ~ II ~± a ,~ h r, M a° U z U ~~ h ~o~ ao o rj ply, p 7~. 6 F ~ ~ z ~~ .~ f ;:; :r %: ~~ ~~` € ~< H d .~ 4 y h ~~ ~ ~ ~ y ~> .. «+ t5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ o g ~; •v ~ .~ ~ ~ s ~ a ~ ' • '` • ~ 47 vi '° ~ q Q .h• ~ ~ lyd ~ ~ ~ ~~ •~ 0 ~ ~n ~ M ~ ~ M pp ii .!4 W R '~ Q ~v `r 'a it Fi ~ ~ ~ ` • V q ~ 5 ~ ~ ° as V U ': ~••• , (~?~ ' Q V ~ ~ ~ .~ aj q ~ ~ ~ ~ F~: ,~ ~a~~ ~OgQA aa~~v ~'.~~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .; w ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ b~:::a •~•• V ~ a q c°~ ~ a s q °~ ~ o° N ~ q~~ ~~ ' ' ' c o q {r,~ ~ •: r+~ ~ p, p, ~ •~ o ~ p, p, . f fo s y ~ ggO~~ y ~ >~ ~ x ?Z .--~ gO~ y tj~ y~ y O ~ ~/i ~ ~i ~'R"~~ ~ ~ .C '~ O Ct~ ~•~ r r A ~ ;?N,. ~: • ~z ~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~aa ~ ~~ f ,' >: c~ O ~Sa a o ~3a ~. ~ ~ou~3a ~~ow N M ., ~ao a~~, ~~~... ... c~U 0..~ .. a~ ... ~O z ~~ z 0 ., .~ V M ~: H rg °~° ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a o ~ ~ ~ 8 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~5•~ ~ ~° c~ Q ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ .v ~ ~ ~ ~ t7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a~ ~~ o ~& .~ ~ ~ w ~ o m. .tea ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .A ~ ~~'~ ~S ~ ~~~ Q a ~~~ ~ ~ ~ u •~ a ~ ~ ~ •v ~ ~ '° ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ '~ ~ . ~ • aQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O y ~ '~ ~ U ~ Q ~ a ~ ~ ~ q~y ~ W q 'D ti ~ O w ~' ~ 'G U ~ ~ ~ ~' N N ~ : ~ ~ 'd .~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ .0 a Q ~'v'~`~ ~ i5 /4 .p ~ ~V ii rli .. w ~ ~,a~ O iii `~~ ~.'a~ "a W Sao ~ W ~ "~"- Oo•hU a ~ ~a ~ .~ O ~ .ia ... ~a ~ .o ~ ~ ld ~ C ,b rFi ~ 'd ~ N r' ~ ~ ~ g~ ~ o ~'~ N p {0 F~Ay N ~ O ~ •~ ~ a ~ ~ p, ~ p.~~ . U "'~ ~p ~ .Q p C ~+ y,y ~ ~ ' ~ ty w Q O~ ~'~ ~ w ~S ~ ~ '~ w ~ ~ r..11 W ~ ~ cd , y 8 ~ ~ O •O ~ ~ G ~ `' .a '~ ~ y ~ Q ~ R 'D ~ ^" 'p •V ~ ~ O a 3 •~ b N ~ .~ p ~ .y ~ j ~ m • .~ 0 OD y ~~~ iw A ^ ] „J '~ ~ r ~ ~~~° a+ ~ ~ °a ~ •a h ~UU~~~~~py ~I 'H ~ F ~ ,~ ~ i w U fY~7 V^ a.~ ~j[.~ l~ A ~ ~ t^ ~ Fi ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~y ~~+j p~ ..7 ~ ~ i '~ ~1 ~ ;.. Q (~ ~ ~~„ .~~' y ,~ '~ l~"q~ "~' a .~i yam„ ~ ~„~ ~ W ;; O F ~ ~ ~j pip ~ ~'n Cpl a fQQ~..'~".. '° a ~ ew o ~ ~ ~ AL a o ~ ~ '~ o ~ ~ •o °' P h a ~ ~ ~ p ~ '~ ~. 3~ cw O ~. cs ~•3~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a3 e~ew p~ OD II ~! a w M U a° o~ }`~, U V O d U a w ~ 6 O w °~i~ o z ~~~ .~ ~;> F i F. .i; :~..: %~','? ~•`•: i~:> '•< M H ~~ y h ~ ~ ..~ ~ -{WS ~ ~ ~~ v ~ ~ ~ a ~ e ~~ ~ E~0 ~ ~ p Q ~ 'ti 3~ ~ e .. ~ 4 o c~ ~ a ~ " ~ ~ a~ a~,.~~,~ ~~~ ~~ 8 ° w a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ b' 8 $ ~~ 43 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~'.~~s a,~ a ~ ~~~~8.'~d o3~ . ~~~.~~ .o ~ ~ 8 '~ ~ ~ g S s ci ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a ~ ~ ~ • '~ o .~~, .~ Q. ~ ~ y , . U ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ a~ ~ a ~ W ~ b O ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a , .~ ~ ~ F+ ~ ~ ~ .ja ~ ~ w u ~a e ~ ~ ~"I ~' ""' ~ ~ i~ •~ ~ '' ~~~ ~a3 ~ ~ ~ N f! ~~3 Qw ~ Ol a i a , r b ~ ^ M A~ ~ ~+ r~ ti ° ~,a a. ~ ~ s ~~ ~~ .. ~ ,~ ~ ~ OM ~ W b V z po ~ .~~ ~ , ~~ O ~~ R. ~ ;~ '~ •~ a a O . a t~ II a ~b h M 0 r. O ,~ ., ao ~~ U ., a~ O z~ ~~ .~ M H d ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ l.i ~ ~pp "~^ N ^Q~' ~y .` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ M=/ Vz Q~ qq yp w ~'w ~ W~ 3 ~ f-1 FFFiii '~' ~ ~ M ~ ~.~ po s ~ ~~ O0~ fi ~ b ~ iq ~ $ ° o +~ ~ ~ w b ' ~ ~~' -. . b Q •• . ~ ~ ova ~ a i£ ~ ~ Q e~e~~o ~ ~ o ~ °° .~~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i ,o ,o ~ '~ ~ p~~va Via,; ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~9~ ~~~ •~ ~9 o'~~ p p n 'O ~p a w ~ ~ w '~ ~ ~ .~ O ~ N •+ y ~/ fd C~ ~ a+ ~ ~ ++ ~ r F Zi QI~ O0y ~ N ~ U y i7 ~ fT (~ a ~ pU B~ • Y.~~ C 7 N~ 0 ~ a'•id H ~ i0 ~ h Q ~ .~ '' ~' ~ ~ .V. ~ ~,' ~ ~ ~ S~i a ~ ~ ° ~'a~ o.. a'~ ~ ~ w ~~~ :3 ~ 8 ~a° °w ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ c U~.~~ 88 U$a U~~o4 ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~~ (( iy ~ O Fi ~ ~ aa~ ~ ti ~ G W 0 h ~ ~ Y ~ •.7 ~t'i •.~.) fA ~ ~ ~a ~~x .,, p ~ ~ ~ .+ .Qa ~ w '~ ~ O C pro ~ ~ a .,~~~~ ~ •o °z A ~~ ~ ~ ~ (o °a 'fi ~ ~ O o~w Q .y ~ is W ~ r W . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "' ~ sq •~ ? •~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~~+ a ~~r ~ ~ ~ t~ p,~l a ~c ~ c]i~ ~ '~ tea ~ ° ~ a ~8 ~I ~aa O~ tt~ G~ .~ h M h .~ M ^: H a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 8 .~ o ~ ~ c ~, ~ . ra bs, ~ w o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~p ~~ o ~w ~ ~ ae ~ ,q~ v a~ u~ ,q .~ '~ u • ~. ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ d~ +Q p « ~ S ~'oa8~ ~ ..i p '~ ~ a °a~ ~ ~ ;~p.p ~a 'd .-. pp ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~•~ ~~ s~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ .~^'o~~w r"' _b 'y .s7 ~ o 0 w ~~ ~ ~ ~ l~'~~' C.' r~~ " a ~ Q ~ v~a~ao ~ 80 ~ . U ~'~ ~ w a ~ ~~ -- ~ UO O" Z~ ° ~ U c, ~. 8 U a .~ ~b chi O O ~~h ~a o d U .. o`"~ ._ ~~~ ~~ a~ O i~ z~ ~° ~' ti d E~ ~a F~ 0 O m g ~~ b ~ o N ~ a o o ~ ~ ~ o N o Za ~ ~ d~ o o ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~~ ~a o 0 0 ~ ~ `a o 0 0 ~ a ~ o '~ ~ a ~W ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 0 ~ o ~ o a A w a O a ~ w ~ U o p ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ Ca ~ a ~ v~ ~ a e o z ~' ~ ° ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ o w z ° ~ a ~ U ., ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ., S ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 3 ~ a ao ci GA w rw ~7 x ~: •; ~ .3 ~ x .~ a ;~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~ .~ a ,d z~ ~~ ~~ a~ '~ °a 0 ~~ ,~ ~ o ~ °' o ~ ~ "w~ ~ ~ z ;~ ~ a II ~ ~ can o .o ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~, ~ :~ a ~ '~ >~ ~ ~x~ ~ o~ ~ ~ «. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ a .y ,~ a ~t ~ y o. '~ ~ api ~ o y~~ :° .o ,~ ~~~ ~ ° o~ ~~b ~~~ €~ ~ ~' a !n r j+ EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS JUNE 1994 38 Chapter 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This chapter includes revisions to the DEIR. The revised Summary of Analysis and Conclusions for the EIR, which includes Tables 1 through 3, showing impacts and mitigation measures for each alternative, is shown in Chapter 2 of this FEIR. Therefore, this chapter does not include changes to the summary chapter. Most revisions respond to comments on the DEIR and requests for additional information or clarification from City staff, other agencies and the public during the EIR review period. A few revisions correct minor typographical errors in the DEIR. The comments and their responses are contained in Chapter 5. In this chapter, #i type represents new or revised text added in this Final ..::.....::::::::. EIR. S~il~ type indicates text that has been deleted from the DEIR. 39 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 Page 41, Paragraph 4: ...Under all three alternatives, this category would have a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60, which is based on the existing FARs at office cgs #€ such as the Gateway Tevve~s Specific Plan area and Tomoe Oyster Point. However, it should be noted that the Gateway Specific Plan s»e~ly allows a maximum FAR of 1.25. The maximum Floor Area Ratios of 0.60 can be exceeded for full service hotels, master plan development, or developments which include retail services and child care centers, as provided in Area Plan Policies LU-4b, LU-~~`, LU-234, and LU-2. Page 41, Paragraph 6: This category has ~uve=tom``>different Floor Area Ratios... In the Directed Growth ~:k'v ~dt~~s, this category..would have a maximum allowed FAR of Page 42, Line 1: services and child care centers, as provided in Area Plan Policies LU- 14~~', LU-~34, and LU-2-5. Page 42, Paragraph 2: 40 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 43, Paragraph 1: ...In addition, the Directed Growth Alternatives allows for a mixture of the ~~~."~r~tr~ and Coastal Commercial categories. In these areas, identified uses in either i~~`~tft~~ categoryS would be allowed, and design idelines~~would ensure that # the twe ~~~~~i' a~ use categories would be compatible... Page 44, Table 5 is revised as shown on the following page. Page 44: Koll Site (Sierra Point). Page 56, Table 8, Line 4: Gateway Page 56, the last sentence is revised as follows: .,.::.: . -ex~:.:.' this ten-year horizon allows for relatively accurate projection of probable development under expected market conditions, which in turn allows for calculation of traffic and fiscal impacts. 41 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 Table 5 DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE LAND USE BREAKDOWN Total Existing Potential Building Arm Allowed Area Building Area New Building at Buildout Category FAR' (Acres) (Sq.Fk) (Sq.Fk) (Sq.Fk)° Planned Commercial .60 92 1,685,760 887,131 2,572,891 Light Industrial .SA.55 213 4,634,457 ~~,8~4 ~,~4a,?,&1 Planned Industrial ASS 520 8,801,189 ~ 4•?,A3Z,8~4 Coastal Commercial .60 61 714,060 1,190,073 1,904,133 Gateway Specific Plan 1.25 96 1,211,570 4,003,700 5,215,270 Airport Related N/A 116 N/A N/A N/A Mixed Planned Commercial/ .60 120 649,623 2,584,038 3,233,661 Planned Industrial Mixed Coastal Commercial/ .60 25 378,710 114,204 492,914 Planned Industrial Mixed Coastal Commercial/ .60 21 0 549,379 549,379 Light Industrial Open Space .00 66 22,100 0 22,100 Total 1,330 18,097,469 43~473~OIE4 3~48~ These maxunum Floor Area Ratios can be exceeded with provision of a master plan, or the addition of retail services and child care centers, as provided in Area Plan Policies LU-16, LU-23, and LU-25. However, for environmental review purposes it is assumed that these maximum densities will generally apply. Because buildings in the area with FARs above those allowed under the Plan are A. grandfathered, the Total Building Area at Buildout is greater than the FAR times the acreage in most land use categories. 42 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 57, the bulleted items are revised as follows: Demand for each use was taken from the market analysis for the East of 101 Area. The amounts of land consumed for each use and the building square feet they represent are shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7. • ;...~.:. ::. .?5!W..4..: ~.::...~:y::sR:RlWilf:~k1:~~::~:::iiiF'~~'..i:!4!'.'.. ~'. .~14~:YI~441:~4}:::: .''..'. '...~ ?V.4.' . , f 43 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 Page 58, Table 9 is revised as follows: Table 9 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN ALTERNATIVES INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT (2003) Directed Planned Commercial Growth Emphasis Market Oriented Land Use Alternative Alternative Alternative Office 318,500 sq.ft. 316,200 sq.ft. 316,200 sq.ft. Retail 392,000 sq.ft. 392,000 sq.ft. 376,300 sq.ft. Hotel 254 rooms 508 rooms 508 rooms Flex 1,068,400 sq.ft. 117,600 sq.ft. 1,068,400 sq.ft. Genentech Master 2,600,000 sq.ft. - - Plan € Residential - 1,100 units 2,064 units Total 4,?~8,999 8Z:5,8A~ ~A,9AA 254 hotel rooms 508 hotel rooms 508 hotel rooms 1,100 units 2,064 units Page 59, Paragraph 2. The intermediate development projections for ~tt~s~iIt€j~ncludes full buildout of Genentech's proposed MasterPlan ~ by 2003, which is added to the other development shown in Table 9. This represents a conservative assumption, since portions of the Genentech buildout would be included in the baseline traffic conditions, in the basic 2003 projections above, and in the additional 10 percent increment. Buildout of the Genentech Master Plan would not be allowed under the proposed Area Plan unless a Master Plan allowing an increased Floor Area Ratio in the Genentech area is reviewed by the City Planning Commission and approved by the City under Plan Policies LU-~5~ and LU-~5~`. ~ :::::: A JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 62, the following paragraph is added between the third and fourth paragraphs: Page 75, Paragraph 5: ~~~ Page 83, the following paragraph is added at the end of Section l.i: Page 96, Paragraph 4: (4) Gatewa~pecific Plan District. The Gateway Specific Plan applies to property east of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks between East Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard and west of Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park. Ultimate build-out of the mixed-use project would result in 3r5 million square feet of office space, ~3AA hotel rooms, AAA 8 square feet of research and development space, and an~additional bi~,~AA 45 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 QQ square feet of support retail. Page 98, Paragraph 2: However, Policy LU-~1~ requires the City to track these potential impacts from increased density, and to limit growth if unmitigable effects on traffic or sewage capacity would occur with new development. Policy LU-~ follows: reports to the every two years. Page 99, Paragraph 3: Allowed FARs for each land use category have been derived based on studies of modern development that matches each category. The allowed FAR of .60 for the Planned Commercial category is based on the existing FARs at office cgs ';' °;" such as the Gateway 'ewe-.~s ~~;;':'~€~` and Tomoe Oyster Point... Council 46 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 100, Paragraph 2: ...through development of a master plan, as described in Policies LU- 43d and LU-~~: below: Policy LU~S~S... Policy LU-~~~'... Page 100, The following paragraph is added at the end of Section 1. Directed Growth Alternative (Preferred Alternative): Page 101, Paragraph 3: ... However, Policy LU-4-3~.... Page 102, Paragraph 2: ...In addition, properties with facility-wide master plans approved b the Ci ~r)~'~~~i')i:i~»~';~:~'~>»~ would be able to develop at higher FARs, as stipulated in Policy LU-4~ of the Area Plan, thereby increasing the flexibility of larger ~ ~~ developments. Page 102, The following paragraph is added at the end of Section 2. Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative: 47 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 Page 104, Paragraph 4: ... as stipulated in Policy LU-~'7 of the Area Plan ... Page 104-105: ...Existing development in the Gateway area, including .~~: "~,'°:".°'°t~: the Gateway e€f~se-tew~s ~?':,~a~ and the Rouse office park, have FARs that are consistent with FARs allowed by the alternative, so no significant impact would occur. Page 105, The following paragraph is added at the end of Section 3. Market Oriented Alternative: Page 111, Paragraph 3: ...A view looking through the entryway can be seen in Photo ~ t~. Page 120, Paragraph 1: ...A view of Oyster Point Boulevard around the Oyster Cove development can be seen in Photo 4~ ... 48 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 120, Paragraph 4: At this entry, many of the older industrial developments around Harbor Way are visible in the background; examples are shown in Photo 23s $... Page 121, Paragraph 2: ...The larger development of Fuller-O'Brien is at the termination of East Grand Avenue, as shown in Photo 2~ . Page 121, Paragraph 4: Visual features prominent from this entryway are the transmission lines, which are directly in front of the Super 8 Lodge, the Super 8 Lodge itself, the Ramada Inn, and the South San Francisco Conference Center, as shown in Photos ~ and ~ ~.. ......... Page 122, Paragraph 4: ...The San Bruno Freeway overpass and channel crossing provide a transition between the Airport to the south and commercial and hotel activity to the north, as shown in Photo 34s . Page 123, Paragraph 4: ...A portion of this view can be seen in Photo 24d ~1. Page 124, Paragraph 1: ..Photo 3Aa ~ shows the CalTrain depot. Page 125, Paragraph 2: ...A general view of this area is shown in Photo 4~ Z, while the streetscape is shown in Photo ~ ~~. 49 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 Page 125, Paragraph 3: As shown in Photo ~9a the area also includes two five-story buildings located at theeast end of Oyster Point Boulevard... Page 125, Paragraph 4: ...There are also several commercial buildings in the area, which are illustrated in Photo ~9s i~... Page 125, Paragraph 5: Oyster Point Boulevard, which serves as the entry to this area, has an incoherent streetscape resulting from the mix of haphazard development and undeveloped land along it, as illustrated in Photo ~ c~... Page 126, Paragraph 1: The Caltrain station, also located in this area and shown in Photo ~8a Via; contains a small brick building that is no longer used... Page 126, Paragraph 3: Two high-rise office buildings, shown in Photo ~8b i, are the centerpieces of the Gateway development, and are also the East of 101 Area's most prominent landmarks when viewed from Highway 101...A parking area surrounds S#t~<~ the buildings covering Kest ' of the site. Page 126, Paragraph 6: ...The streetscape character in the area is shown in Photo ~8s ~. 50 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 126, Paragraph 7: ...A typical example is shown in Photo ~ ~'... Page 127, Paragraph 2: ...Forbes Boulevard, shown in Photo ~ ~l, is a long curvilinear street that includes uniform median strips~~and street lamps with sidewalks on one side... Page 127, Paragraph 3: Similarly, Allerton Avenue, which is illustrated in Photo ~s `~, has a distinct, well-developed streetscape with dense rows of pine trees that reinforces the straight line of the street... Page 128, Paragraph 1: ...The Genentech development, illustrated in Photos ~ and ~ ~8~t, includes manufacturing facilities, laboratories, office, and warehouse buildings... Page 128, Paragraph 4: ...A typical view of this area from East Grand Avenue is shown in Photo ~3s ~fi~. Page 128, Paragraph 5: A development that is atypical of buildings in the area is the Edgewater Business Park, which is shown in Photo 33d $... Page 129, Paragraph 1: ...A typical view of this area is shown in Photo 33a ~:;. 51 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 129, Paragraph 3: The buildings on the Fuller-O'Brien site consist of an assemblage of old and new buildings, as shown in Photo ~ ~~ti... Page 129, Paragraph 4: Adjacent to the shoreline is the Marine Magnesium Plant, shown in Photo ~s 1'... Page 129, Paragraph 5: ...A view of South Airport Boulevard is shown in Photo 34a Via. Page 161, the following paragraph is added after the third full paragraph: Page 161, Paragraph 4: The Housing Element currently shows 18 very-low-income units and 12 w-income units ~~tu~<:t~it~~~thrtm~~~::.'; ;:t~~fi~#€r; to ~Ea~~`~`CtC~z€ on the Koll site. ~~~~ Page 162, Mitigation Measure POP-D1: Mitigation Measure POP-D1: Before adoption of the Area Plan, the city should amend its Housing Element to d~t~t'~Et~~t~o~og~ to replace the affordable housing currently shown on the Koll site. 52 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 179, last bulleted item: ...The new northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp will access the study area at a new intersection on Dubuque Avenue south of ster Point Boulevard. `~~?s~.,~##.E~#~'1~`?G Oy :.:::::::.:...::::.:...::::.:.::.:~:;::::::::::::.:~:.:::::::::.~:.~::: Page 181, Paragraph 2: The results show that only 3 of the 29 study intersections are expected to operate at LOS E or F under future baseline conditions... Page 181, the following is added after the last bulleted item: Page 187, last bulleted item: Genentech provides shuttle service to the CalTrain station d~<t~;~:'~:':arl~':`?>s~at~ durin commute hours. ....... .,,. .,,.. ,.,.,,. ...,., ,,,,,,.... g Page 189, Policy CIR-13: All new developments of 25,000 square feet or more ::;.; ::.:..................::.....::::::.... #~c~:ti~a and projected to accommodate 30 or more l``:': iuxt~~~employees, s>~all-~~i~~... ..................... Page 193, Paragraph 3: The three alternatives generate between 14,000 and 19,000 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour under buildout conditions. The AM peak- hour trips vary between 12,000 and 17,000. 53 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 Page 196, Paragraph 2: Rather than requiring mitigation of this impact, the City could institute Policy LU-~~ of the Area Plan, which requires the City to track development for its impacts on roadway systems as follows: reports to the ~!~sst~c~City Council a~-le~s>:-~~~~once every two years. Page 196, last line: LOS :.: ;''~.'t` Page 197, Paragraph 3: This impact could be mitigated through establishing a developer's impact fee for projects which impact traffic conditions in both the City of South San Francisco and other Peninsula cities. ~p;~if 54 JUNE 1994 Page 197,:Mitigation Measure CIR-Dl: EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR The City of South San Francisco should institute an impact fee for joint benefit transportation projects in cooperation with other Peninsula cities. ~'lisp::its:a?~d:::~lh~~c:~a~_<:;~xta€:::.d::::<~~g~rr~d:#~::::.x~cxnr Page 198, first sentence: Under buildout conditions, a-~jer~--a'~~f the freeway segments are ro'ected too erate at LOS F r~'~;t~C' ~t~~>~71~:=~~iiis ~ 'k?'h°Q`>~~~ as shown in Table 35. Page 198, first paragraph: Without inclusion of the Airport Master Plan, the Northbound Grand Avenue to South Airport Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard to San Bruno Boulevard segments would operate at a LOS D in the PM .....:.. eak hour axi€d~rtn ::t~e::;~: ...;a~:<~':::ch~::?~~~QU€r~d»;;:::: ~~'::::;::ol Page 198, Impact CIR-D2: Acceptable levels of service would be exceeded at gigl~-~iEast of 101 Area intersections with development of the Directed Growth Alternative through 2003. Page 199, Paragraph 1: Table 36 shows that operations at e~igl~~~of the key intersections are projected to degrade to unacceptable levels. The deficient intersections 55 :::::.:. .:..:.. ~i#1~€~~?~':~#I~tlt#>~f1GS~ItIt1:~`:,<:::~:::..;::.~~~.~.~.~.~~...'`~:_I`t>':...._,:>:::.,f EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 include all three of those that are stop-sign controlled. ~~f the signalized intersections would operate below the acceptable threshold. These intersections are identified below: • Bayshore Boulevard and Southbound 101 • East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue Page 199, Paragraph 2: Mitigation Measure CIR~ 3... Page 199, Paragraph 3: ... With these improvements, the aigl~~t1ympacted intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service... Page 199, Paragraph 4: As shown in Table 21, ~?['of the improvements would eT~}--be necessary to accommodate~buildout of the Genentech Master Plan. If the Genentech Master Plan is not approved by the City under Area Plan policies LU~~ and LU-~1'... Page 200, Table 21 is revised as shown on the following page. 56 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT' EIR Table 21 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL Widen Oyster Point Boulevard from two to four lanes from the existing two-lane segment west of Eccles Avenue to the proposed Gull Road. Widen Littlefield Avenue from two to four lanes from Fast Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue. Add a d'`:northbound right-tum pocket on Littlefield Avenue, and add a westbound~le8-tum pocket on East Grand Avenue at the East Grand Avenue~~and~~littlefield Avenue intersection. Install traffic signals at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. Add a 3eit~northbound right-tum pocket on Gateway Boulevard at East Grand Avenue. ................ ................ Add a second through lane at the approach from the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard (scissors). Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp (scissors). The following improvements would also be needed to',accommodate buildout of the Genentech Master Plan. by 2000: Install traffic signals at Produce Avenue and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp. Realeva~d,. ?St(xili':'..::::::.~'r''.1'ilratiYiu~=fit'..>,<::....,:::ii't3a<f ~.t::::::: aii> ie~€i:`~:::.::.::;,.:::::Ai''.::.:::,: i~1~~~:~crai?~<>`~±~€i~:laitQ ~ >)i:<~i~i>~i~fci ~zu]~rr€u~<Ba~ir~iart~~za~]etreri~! Restripe northbound approach of Gull Road at Oyster Point Boulevard to include alert-tu lane and a shared left- and right-tum lane. Restripe southbound left-tum lane of Forbes Boulevard at East Grand Avenue as a shared throughpeft-tum lane. Page 202, last paragraph: The results show that under 2003 conditions, a~the Flyover Alternative would offer marginally better traffic conditions, with four of the six intersections operating at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour and all six intersections operating satisfactorily during the PM peak hour. , . Under all three roadway ......................... alternatives, the intersections of l~isba~--~-s~~Boulevard/ Southbound 101 off-ramp and Oyster Point ~BoulevardJGateway Boulevard would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour. 57 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR TUNE 1994 Page 203, first and second paragraphs: Iie~I'3and the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Page 203, Policy CIR-5: Roadway access to the Koll site a~~:~}~.tbe provided via a roadway between the site and the Shearwater Site, or via flyover ramps from the site to Highway 101 or Bayshore Boulevard o Planning for these improvements s)~e~s~take into account tential im acts ~iwsiu~'tf~'~<t~msi~~>~~ve~:o' ~`~~'~`:~~on traffic in Brisbane, the East~~of 101 Area, and the rest of South San Francisco. Improvements shall be completed by the project sponsor at the time of development of the Koll'site. Page 205, Line 3: ... Francisco and other Peninsula cities. 58 Under buildout development levels, all six intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels during at least one of the peak-hour periods, regardless of the access alternative. JUNE 1994 Page 205, Mitigation Measure CIR-Pl: EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR The City of South San Francisco should institute an impact fee for joint benefit transportation projects in cooperation with other Peninsula cites. ~:: 1 .............:<.::.::.::::~.~.;:.:::.»;;::.::.::.:.:.:;:::::::.::.:.::.:.::.:::::::::. ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~ng.;..::;~:.; .: ~~ :: ate:.: Page 205, Paragraph 1: (c) Freeway Impacts. Table 42 shows freeway operating conditions under buildout of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. je~i~-of the freeway segments are projected to o erate at LOS F c`ri~~ ~`~'~s~Q~iwc~~'~ "°i~~. On some segments the volume~~~is projected to exceed the capacity by 20 to 30 percent. Page 205, Impact CIR-P2: Acceptable levels of service would be exceeded at €~-5~Fast of 101 Area intersections with development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative through 2003. Page 205, last paragraph: Five intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour and ear-e~~ip~during the PM peak ~..... hour. The t~stuintersections include the three stop-sign controlled intersections plus~iintersections on Oyster Point Boulevard. Page 206, Table 22 is revised as shown on the following page: Page 206, last 2 paragraphs are deleted. 59 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Table 22 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL Widen Oyster Point Boulevard from two to four lanes from the existing two-lane segment west of Eccles Avenue to the proposed Gull Road. Widen Littlefield Avenue from two to four lanes from East Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue. Add a sspirorthbound right-turn pocket on Littlefield Avenue. ............... ................ Install traffic signals at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. Add a second through lane at the approach from the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard. Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp (scissors). The following''improvements would also be needed to accommodate buildaut of the ``Genentech Master Plan by 2003: Install traffic sr als at ero-~ealeuar~--~!tat3~~kI3tf~;'and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp. l~ealova~3. Restripe northbound approach of Gull Road at Oyster Point Boulevard to include aleft- tum lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. ..............::::::.... .................... ta~cri3`'>:':~ :.,.:.:.)'ai~~i~leict~a~`:t~roi~a~`:;B,~i Page 207, Impact CIR-P3: The northbound segment of Highway 101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue and the ~a-ksouthbound segments from Sierra Point to ~~~:°.:~~:a~`~>are expected to exceed acceptable level of service through intermediate development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative. Page 207, Paragraph 3: Ee~-'~E~f the eight freeway segments would operate below the minimum standard of LOS E. Page 207, last line: ... Therefore, Policy LU-~~ would also be ... 60 JUNE 1994 Page 208, last paragraph: EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ... South San Francisco and other Peninsula cities. Page 208, Mitigation Measure CIR-Ml: The City of South San Francisco should institute an impact fee for joint benefit transportation projects in cooperation with other Peninsula cities. 'i?li~~<i 't~u:::ala::Sher:lord:::n~es~t~s:::>nld:::h~::::r~n~~::::~~:::r~ty Page 209, first paragraph: Table 47 shows freeway operating conditions under full buildout of the Market Oriented Alternative. je~;iof the freeway segments are projected too erate at LOS F .i~iri""~~??het<~~~~:~~"':`"~::';~." On some segments the volume is projected to exceed the capacity by 20 to 30 percent. Page 209, Impact CIR-M2: Acceptable levels of service would be exceeded at siEast of 101 Area intersections with development of the Market Oriented Alternative through 2003. Page 209, Paragraph 4: A total of si~t~I~ntersections during the AM peak hour and €e~s~€ during the PM~~peak hour are projected to operate unacceptably. Page 209, Mitigation Measure CIR-M2: ...CIR~14-I~... 61 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ]UNE 1994 Page 209, last 2 paragraphs: Required improvements for the Market Oriented Alternative would be ~,.,,si,-,,,,,,,R,~~. **~ i'ci~l~I~l~~i~'<those for the Directed Growth The results of the intersection level of service calculations both with and without the improvements are presented in Table 49. With the improvements, all of the intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels. ' Page 210, Table 23 is revised as shown on the following page. Page 210, all 3 paragraphs are deleted. Page 211, delete first sentence. Page 212, Policy CIR-16: .. as described in Policy LU~1... Page 213, Policy CIR-10: Sidewalks sl~s`i ... Page 213, Policy CIR-13: All new developments of 25,000 square feet or more ~~l c~ri; and projected to accommodate 30 or more~:.:t~[ue ;::::;~ x~a~ employees, shall-~~~~~include showers, locker rooms, and secure bicycle parking areas~~to~support the use of bicycles. 62 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Table 23 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL Widen Oyster Point Boulevard from two to four lanes from the existing two-lane segment west of Eccles Avenue to the proposed Gull Road. Widen Littlefield Avenue from two to four lanes from Fast Grand Avenue to Utah Avenue. Add a se?vRnorthbound right-turn pocket on Littlefield Avenue, and add a westbound left-turn~~pocket on East Grand Avenue at the East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue intersection. Install traffic signals at the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue. Add a i~~orthbound right-turn pocket on Gateway Boulevard at East Grand Avenue. Add a second through lane at the approach from the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp at Bayshore Boulevard. Install traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp (scissors). Add a second ~ew~-left-turn pocket a<$e~~`1~`" :;;~z3'lean ~~#~€ j... Oyster :::;Boulevard at Gateway Boulevard and ~~3c1<a southbound auxiliary lane on Gateway Boulevard ~axf~~a~`ES~r`$tsti~'~'a i ,'I1~e following improvements would also be needed to accommodate"buildout of the >Genentech Master Plan by 2003: Install traffic signals at Produce Avenue and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp II Restripe northbound approach of Gull Road at Oyster Point Boulevard to include alert- II turn lane and a shared left- and right-turn lane. II Add a northbound right-turn pocket on Harbor Way at the intersection with East Grand II Avenue. 63 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN ]1JNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 214, Policy CIR-15: ... Multi-City Transportation System Management Agency r±'. Pages 216-284: The tables and figures of the Transportation and Circulation section of the EIR are revised as shown in the Appendix of this FEIR. These revisions respond to the elimination of the Linden Avenue on-ramp to southbound U.S. 101 in the analyses of the EIR and an increase in the Floor Area Ratios allowed in the Light Industrial and Planned Industrial land use categories of the Area Plan. Figures 23 and 27 are also amended to show City boundaries. Page 301, last paragraph: Existing open space parks in the East of 101 Area may be impacted by noise levels, primarily those associated with aircraft flyovers. ~e~-i Though high instantaneous noise levels as prevalent in the East of 101 Area, open space and recreation opportunities should still be provided for area employees and visitors. Page 316, the following is added to Table 54: C4 Healy Tibbits 385 Oyster CERCLIS No further action planned. Construction Co. Point Blvd. 64 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 318, the following is added to Table 55: C4 Seaboard Paper Company 336 Oyster Gasoline Unknown. No further action. Point Blvd. Page 322, second line: Page 322, Paragraph 3: ................. Page 322, e. Ouster Point Dumn is revised as follows: The Oyster Point Dump, also known as the South San Francisco Municipal Dump facility, accepted mixed municipal wastes ~s 1`<~~~6~According to the Facility Profile Report~e~, this dump ~s received a wide variety of hazardous wastes including acidic and alkaline solvents, oxygenated solvents, waste oil, organic monomer waste, organic liquids with metals, paint sludge, fly ash, household waste, and liquids containing cyanides, chromium, and lead. 65 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 323, the first and second sentences are deleted as follows: )UNE 1994 Page 323, Paragraph 3: ...Materials left on the site were covered with one foot e€~ sel~ast~d-fill ate PCBs and asbestos contaminated soil and debris were removed and shipped under manifest to a hazardous waste disposal facility. Page 324, Paragraph 1: ..;:'~' Page 327, Paragraph 1: b. Public Health Hazard. Applicable laws require the cleanup or containment of hazardous waste contamination that poses a threat to human, animal, or plant populations. As noted in the previous section, there are seven vacant or underutilized sites with known hazardous 66 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR waste contamination in the area, and approximately 45 other sites with known contamination, underground storage tanks or both. ......:...........::...................................................................................::......: Only those ~~:*wsfor which remediation and containment efforts have resulted in acceptable reductions in contamination and health risks are considered to be remediated for occupation or development. 5~~~`ld Page 328, Paragraph 2: b. Public Health Hazard. As described previously, applicable laws in the East of 101 Area require the cleanup or containment of hazardous waste contamination that poses a threat to human, animal, or plant populations. , 67 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ]UNE 1994 Page 330, Paragraph 1: b. Public Health Hazard. As described previously, applicable laws in the East of 101 Area require the cleanup or containment of hazardous waste contamination that poses a threat to human, animal, or plant populations. 68 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 333, Figure 51, Study Area Geology, is revised as shown on the following page. This revision more accurately depicts the potential limit of the Coyote Point fault wne. Page 353, Paragraph 1: Polic~~as GEO-13 a~I~' r'~-~ provided for ~i~g-a~€e~ appropriate setbacks as stated below. Page 358, Paragraph 5: Two other seasonal wetlands occur in the central portion of the ::::..:.... ,~ :~ study area. These ~t~~~ wetlands... Page 359, Figure 55 is revised as shown on page 71. Page 361, second sentence: ...These ~~:';`~~ wetlands were... 69 LEGEND Bedrock Soils Filled ~~ Mazshlands ~' \` -. Over Recent ~ ~ ,%~ Bay Mud ~\- ~ Fill Over ~ ,~ ~ ,~~~ ®Recent ~4 : ~ E Bay Mud #~ ~~'. .~ I ., Preliminary '~' : F~< boundary F ;: of area >: '~ potentially ~ ~l susceptible '" to surface ~ ~' fault ~ 1t~~ .: rupture.* ~ +. ~• - ~ i !' ~/n *Area to the south of this boundary may experience surface displacements during eazthquakes on the Coyote Point fault zone. The azea to the north appeazs to lie outside of the Coyote Point/Hillside fault zone. (Interpretation based on preliminary data collected by USGS.) ~_ J~\ ~. ~ ,~ ~ ~~ / ~ , -~.1 -.~.. / ~ `°-~ .~ C ~~a.~ ~l~ ,, ' ~~ \~ ~~\~\\ ~~\ S C A L E 7'.7800' a soa soar 2ooa EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y AND ASSOCIATE S FIGURE 51 Study Area Geology LEGEND SM North Coastal Salt Marsh FM Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh SW Potential Seasonal Wetland MF Mud Flats EST Esturine O National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), April 1985, U.S. Fsh and Wildlife Service O Site Reconnaissance: March 5, 1993. Dames and Moore ~~ ~ f , ., if '~~ '~,~ ,` y 1 ~~ .,.,, ,,,, .~ ., '~ .. ;: ~ ,; ~_ ~ .: ,a r~ , ~ rE :" i ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 1,~2 \ ~ ~ ! f ~ 1,,~~. ~, E Y `. r, _ ~ 4~ t5 '~ ~.[ J < ~.. yk ~ l: Y ~ 1 ~., i% t I~ l~. 1~ ; ~ ~ ;, /'~ ry r~~ ~~~m~ r Q' ~' ~oF _. _ i, ~~ ~ / J ~ ~ ~ 'O ~ -.,EyI PV y i• / \\ i 4 ffyj' ,- O / `~:~ b ~~I> mry ~ ~ /( SW-~ J/ _ _ _ - tit r ~ i ~~ ///y ~( -' EAS GRAND E -~~ ~ '• f - •~'~"' / ~e.l^ 4 / .\ \ it - f. ~ r' _ / ~_ \ F A i ~ F A I ~_-. ~~~ ~ ` ~ / ,, ~ 1 .. ,, ~' ~ ~ ~ 11r f. V~ / / , Ui .,~ .~ ~ .. - ~ _ .__ ~J„ _ -~__ : - r _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~'~~ __ '- e.. ........ .... .. I ~ ~ -~._._ ~ ~ I 1 ~~~M /~ i ~ 1~ __ f ~ ~ __ y:E 1'~~ i. ~ J 1. .i -. ~ l I ~ O . . /' IIII N w ~ ~ I 1 _ ~-! _ _ ~ i 3 l- ~ _ _-- ~~i . ,__ _..~_: i .. .x..11_ ~ ; ... ~ ~ ~. _~-~ .. ,~ . b.. - _=~ I SM'' a~ ~ ;~ ~;~ X1,2 ~ I ~E ~• .~,._ j' ~ . ., ~_ .__ __ .._ °~ ~ ~. ~ I ~. ~, ` ~. ~ M ~~ fit` ~ ~, >!, 2 elm ~ ~~ ~- _ ~ ~~ V~, i~-i ~ „f I `~ ~ ,,~~ `~ '; ~ ~ ~, ~ Sari Franciso ~ ~ ~~'. ;r•' g~~ "` Bey (EST) li ~; i~ ~ N T' ',` j ~ ~, ii ~~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ p ~ ? ~ I~. ~ -„ems III-- - '' ~ ) <~~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~t ~ SM ~' 2 't I ~_ _. __ ~~ ~ ~ `~ 'i r _: . , ~, ~'I - - t ~': i ~~~ of .,l ~ ~ ~ ,~~ -~ ~ ~ ~~._ _ ~ ~ ~ . -~ ~ ~ SM, SW I~ 5 N BRUMO ERFEW V ~ ' ~/ 11`\ i. \ r. i 1 . T y ~ v \ i I 1 ' ~~ NOTE: The majority of the project area consists of Urban Habitat (URB) and some Annual Grassland Habitat (AGS) occuring in open fields. The presenence and exact location of these resources should be verified in the field. S C A L E 1'.1300' 0' 500' )OQ7' 20LY7' City of South San Francisco ~~ ~ ' ,' ~ ~-- ~ ~ , /~ ~ §~ P ~ EAST OF ' 1~1 AREA PLAN MF ~~ / 4o-, 3 l"' I ~ .f ~./ ~~ '' _ f / ~~ ,y ', 2 - l O ~ ~ , ~ j a FIGURE 55 Potential Sensitive Biological Resources (Revised) B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S ILA N N Y Y/ A N D L A N D /CAI ^ A Y C Y I E Y C i/ JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACr REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Page 387, Paragraph 2: ...Policies 1-1 and #RE-2 of the Plan specifically provide for the delineation ~~and protection~~of wetland resources on a project by project basis. These policies are summarized below: Policy 1-1. ... Policy #R-2. Page 387, last paragraph: ...Policy #Ri-7 ... Page 388, first paragraph: ..Policy #Ril-7 ... Page 388, the following is added to the end of Policy #I~-7: This reflects a policy which already exists in the Revised Draft Area Plan, but was inadvertently omitted from the DEIR. Page 389, Paragraph 1: Policies #R-4, #~:1-5 and #R:E?7--6 provide for site surveys and protection ~~of sensitive~~species, as stated below: Policy! #R-4. The City shall :.' ........... .. 1'e`'l~rl~€#~it`~~~~ ~.~1`?e<an sensitive:::::~lant 73 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ]UNE 1994 and animal species that occur in the East of 101 Area. Policy ~-5. ... Policy #~C3'-6. ... Page 390, Paragraph 2: Policy #~-7 requires... Page 390, last paragraph: Policy #~-7 of the Area Plan requires... Page 413, Paragraph 1: ...new development under the Directed Growth Alternative is projected to require almost 3~~'~ million gallons of water per day, or about x;448-2;~acre-feet per year, as shown in Table 65. Page 414, Table 65 is revised as shown on the following page. Page 416, Paragraph 2: The new wastewater treatment plant demand created by the Directed Growth Alternative is outlined in Table 66. The Directed Growth Alternative would have a1tt~i~-°~-~t-1. homes dail~-.!`*Page 416, Paragraph 3: ... Without these improvements, the plant's capacity appears to have been reached. ~l»°">f~r:>'~>~ ~~:~.:. .............0......~..............tt...... 74 A d W~ A ~ CWT ~ r A3a H W 0 U ~,, zo H Z = ~ o ~ M O Gn d "w,l' "" N 1Q e 'O A ~ ~-. ~ ~ a~'~ o~0 ~ h M h N .-i M o0 !~l ~O N ~v~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O g 8~ ~ " H M ~Ny ~-i [~ h N r q iq ^ W W ~ W W ~ W W ~ {•'r ~ ~ a 3 ~' ~ 8 H ~ y Qs~ ~ ~ 8 a H R h `~. N ?, ~ H ~ ~R\ N ~ A Vj ~ \/ ~ ~ ~ V N N h N ~ ~ an W ~ A ~ a W .~ 'd ° ~ °' o0 5~ ~ QQ Z5 gg d Iw ~ ~ OD ~ .. .~+ N oM0 r+ N h R N ~O N a e ` '$ 5~ r5 ~ QQ ~i ~• 5~ 25 ~ e Q m 25 p~~ a C ~ ~ ~f m ~ ~ vl ~ ~ w ~ 7 g ~O aD p n .: ~ ^~ ~ :~•,>: ~ b .:~::: ~:::: a ~ .~ ~ ~ ,. s <;: :~; g ~ :~<: ~::: >~:: A .~ ~ O d~ " m .:: ~> o" w ~: o" y ~ d > ~' A a ~ p M ~~ " :: :; Vif: o ~ ~ ~ h ~W.~ ~ ^O " ~ OO " GG CC 7 p d. ~74i G00 H y ~ y N U y N r~ 7I N ~ .~ ~ L N 009 ~ ` '~ ' ~ {rr N ~ 'd _ •~ •Li e a ~y cg 'r :.a ~ 'a ~ a' ~v N ~:: ~!c!::E EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 ai~a~a~~ ....................... ........................ ....................... ........................ ~iix4s reflected in Policy PF-5, the City is to complete plant capacity tests ~ ... Page 416, Policy PF-5 is revised as follows: The City of South San Francisco shall ~ital~to determine the Wastewater Treatment Plant~capacity.~~~~~~~ Page 417, Table 66 is revised as shown on the following page. Page 436, Paragraph 1: ...Currently, the South San Francisco Unified School District i'~e ~er~-any new office or business development would~~increase the demand for implementation of this legislation. The School District would like to be able to fulfill any education requests of employees in the East of 101 Area, but current budget and classroom space limitations could make it impossible for the District to serve these children. Page 436, Paragraph 2: ...The School District is currently developing a Fee Justification Study as a first step towards increasing the fees. However, according to current State law, this fee could only be raised to a ~ ~~3 cents per square foot maximum... 76 ~ax oW u~ a a~~ A ~ d w w~~ oho ~wo N as z a z ti O~ w~ ,~ W ^~ ~ ~i F F w~ ~° O '~ o ~ 0 & 0 0 ~ . '_ 8 .. „ ,~ Ca E v a Z rs a ~ ~ ~' N a fq ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Otl ~ C O -r ~"~ ~ ~ M 0~ !~1 ~ d . ~ ~ ~ V'1 rl w '" = o o 0 ~ o ~ d ~ .~• ~ 8 °~° 8 Ca 8 W ~, ; z •~ 8 „ U a ~ ~' ~ 9~," ~ H a ~, ~ ~~ , V Q G Q ~ ~--~ Q Q C a ~ d ~ N ~ V P ~ [~ ~-i ..y ~ .~i ~ +,, a ~C .--~ N O '" :~::: ~ en::: ~ ~, a ~ z V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O a+ Q ~ V °" ?1~2 ~?O'Bt '~" >' ~ ~" ~ ~' ~ ~" o a ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ N .-/ V~'~ ~ e-1 c~ .r ~ • ~ b ~ e~ .; l~ ~ ~~ 6Q~y1 ' ~ _ ~ V m .~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ L7G F °~ w a~ .~ b U .y M M '~ h D a a a a~ .~ 0 .~ 0 a 0 x .~ fn' A yN .D A H N 4~a 0 • EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 Page 436, Paragraph 4: ...as reflected in Policy LU-24, as follows: Policy LU-345... Page 444, Paragraph 3: South San Francisco Unified School District's School Impact Fees for residential developments are currently $1.50 per square foot. School impact fees for new construction are currently limited by State law to $~Fr~ per square foot. With the failure of Proposition 170 (ACA 6) in the November 1993 election, the additional one dollar per square foot fee authorization which was originally authorized January 1, 1993, is repealed. This fee authorization would have brought the maximum school fees to $2=Fr3 ;:'? The South San Francisco Unified School District is currently~~developing a Fee Justification Study as a first step towards increasing the fee. Assuming the impact fees could eventually be raised to the $~~ ~~~ and assuming unit sizes of about 1,200 per unit, the 1,100 units on the Koll site would generate a maximum of $~B~AAA ~~ in ::....:........:.:...... school facility fees. Based on experiences in other Northern California communities, average per student capital costs for new facilities are assumed to equal approximately $11,700. Thus new students generated on the Koll site would generate a total cost of $3,826,000. This would create a shortfall of $~8A8 1, so an unavoidable significant impact would occur on school facilities. Page 446, Paragraph 1: ...Policy LU-342... Page 454, Paragraph 3: School impact fees for new residential construction are currently limited by State law to $4~~ per square foot. With the failure of Proposition 170 (ACA~~6) in the November 1993 election, the additional one dollar per square foot fee authorization which was originally authorized January 1, 1993, is 78 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR repealed. This fee authorization would have brought the maximum school fees to $3~5 ~~ The South San Francisco Unified School District is currently developing a Fee Justification Study as a first step towards increasing the fee. Assuming unit sizes of about 1,200 per unit, the 3,388 units on the Koll and Shearwater sites would generate a maximum of $~A8;~4A i?~$ in school facility fees. Based on experience in other Northern California communities, average per student capital costs for new facilities are assumed to equal approximately $11,700. Thus new students generated on the Koll site would generate a total cost of $11,805,000. This would create a shortfall of ~,abA :~~~~, so an unavoidable significant impact would occur on~school~~facilities. Page 455, last paragraph: ...Policy LU-24:x... Page 470, Paragraph 4: b. Trails. The Area Plan's Recreation Element provides for the continued provision of an open space network along the San ..::::.y::: • :::::::::::::: ~.. v:::::w::::. ~::::..~ :•.:: ~:::::::::: •::::. ~::::::::::::::::::. Yv.~:::::, Francisco Bavshores€li~t`~rlth Ti~t'~~t~Qn T~:~~i':;1€t Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Page 492, the following revisions are made to Policy LU-18: ...This restriction includes meat processill plants, above-ground flammable liquid storage, and other similar intensive industrial uses. Page 520, Paragraph 1: Policy LU-~5~ Uses that emit loud noise or create hazardous materials, water contaminants, or other pollutants 79 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 shall only be allowed in the East of 101 Area after review by the Planning Commission, which must find .. dd~"t~~v~n'`t~''€°"`~`~>'.x.»:«:`.:~~~'that a proposed~~nse would include all feasible ga~ie~ measures >~~::.>.,.~?'~~ ~<:,::>:<.;..and that the use would also have mitigating benefits such as employment creation or revenue generation. Policy LU-~9... Policy LU-X92?... Auto, truck, and equipment sales, rental lots, and storage and parking shall not be permitted in the Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial, or Coastal Commercial categories unless such uses are located Y Y %.... under major utility lines. ~;~iR~'#~t~~tn Policy PF-~0. ... Page 521, Paragraph 1: Policy LU-~8~... Policy LU-~9... Policy LU-28... Page 521, Paragraph 2: PF-9 ~,a-~-~ ... PF-9 ~n~~.... PF-~..::... 80 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO TH$ DRAFT EIR Page 523, Paragraph 4: Plan Policy PF-~. ... Page 528, Paragraph 3: Plan Policy PF-~ Page 529, Paragraph 2: Plan Policy PF-~~ ... Page 529, Paragraph 5: ... PF-~~ ... Page 538, Mitigation Measure CU-D26: ` rior to their demolition... ...documentation of the ~ p Page 539, Mitigation Measure CU-P26: ...documentation of the ~ prior to their demolition... Page 540, Mitigation Measure CU-M26: ...documentation of the b prior to their demolition... Page 556, last paragraph: ...The Plan allows for a mixture of light industrial and commercial uses, ~~;t~1ial ;.;:.;::: ::.:::.:...:.::::..:....::....:::.:.:...::.... ~at~ for retail, office and hotel use 81 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 Page 561, the following are added to the list of References: ~'# Page 569, the following are added to the list of Contacts: 82 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Appendix B is revised as shown in Appendix B of this FEIR, to reflect changes to the East of 101 Area Plan policies. 83 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR JUNE 1994 84 Chapter 4 LIST OF COMMENTORS ^ ^ State and Federal Agencies 1. Department of Transportation, Blesilda H. Gebreyesus, Senior Transportation Planner, February 18, 1994. 2. State of California, Office of Planning and Research, Michael Chiriatti, Jr., Chief State Clearinghouse, February 22, 1994. 3. State of California EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Dr. Rash M. Ghosh, March 9, 1994. Regional and Local Agencies 4. South San Francisco Unified School District, Janice B. Smith, Assistant SuperintendentBusiness Services, January 25, 1994. 5. South San Francisco Unified School District, Richard J. Rigg, Superintendent of Schools, February 17, 1994. 6. San Francisco International Airport, John Costas, Bureau of Planning Administrator, February 18, 1994. 7. City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, John Lucchesi, February 18, 1994. 8. City of Brisbane, Clara A. Johnson, Mayor, February 22, 1994. 9. City of Daly City, Mark Satre, Planning Division, February 22, 1994. 10. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, David F. Carbone, ALUC Staff, February 22, 1994. 85 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LIST OF COMMENTORS JUNE 1994 Private Organizations 11. Lithotype Co., Isabel Sewell, February 7, 1994. 12. Naphatali H. Knox & Associates, Inc., Naphtali H. Knox, February 15, 1994. 13. East Grand Business Center, Paul Shepherd, February 18, 1994. 14. Real Strategies, Inc., David Baldwin, February 18, 1994. 15. Genentech, Inc., James P. Panek, Vice President of Engineering and Facilities, February 22, 1994. 16. Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen, Harvey E. Levine, February 22, 1994. 17. Zucker Systems, Laurie Price, Planning Services Manager, February 23, 1994. 18. Naphtali H. Knox & Associates, Naphtali H. Knox, February 25, 1994. Public Hearing Comments A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on Thursday, February 17, 1994 in the City of South San Francisco before the City's Planning Commission. The following individuals made comments on the Draft EIR. No comments, in addition to those received and addressed in written format, were made. No additional members of the public spoke or commented on the Draft EIR at the hearing. 1. David Baldwin, Homart Development. 2. Don Fox, South San Francisco Unified School District. 3. Harvey Levine, Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann and Inderbitzen. 4. Paul Shephard, 401 E. Grand. 86 Chapter 5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ^ ^ This chapter includes a reproduction of each letter received during the public review and comment period. Comments were received from State, federal, regional and local agencies, and private organizations. Each comment and response is labeled with a reference number in the right hand margin. Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to a previous response. Where a response requires revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), changes have been made to the text and are shown in Chapter 2 (Summary of Analysis and Conclusions) and Chapter 3 (Revisions to the Draft EIR) of this Final EIR. The following letters were received directly by the City of South San Francisco (the lead agency) in response to the DEIR. Each letter is reproduced in its entirety, and is immediately followed by responses to the comments in it. Letters are arranged in order of the type of entity writing them, with State and federal agencies first, regional and local agencies second, and private organizations last. Within each category, letters are arranged according to the written. 87 FEB-23-1994 14 43 FROM TO 15105407344 P.01 STATE`Of CALIFORNIA-81JSINESS, TRANSPORTATK~IV ANO HOUSMG AGENCY ~ p~E yyl~Opf ~,~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 80X 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 (510) 286.4444 TDD (510) 2864454 February 18, 1994 ! ' Kr~~ ~ ~~~` Ffg 2 31954 i ,. ~~~i~G SM-101-22.71 1 SCH: 93081040 ~ SM101185 ~~ Mr. Steve Carlson ~ City of South Sart Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 i Re: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): East of ~01 Area Plan. The plan sets General Plan-level development policies! and guidelines for the 1,700-acres East of 101 Area in the City ofsouth San Francisco, including office, warehouse, industrial, bioscience research and development. Project abuts State Route (SR)101. Dear Mr. Carlson: Thank you for including the California State Department of ~ Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process. We have reviewed the above .referenced revised draft and forward the following comments: I 1-1 1.On page 202 of the document, there is a discussion of three K~~II . _ ._ _ ...._ .Site access. alternatives.,The_flyover„alternative, which has been' approved, requires removal of the Linden Avenue on-ramp to southbo 'SR 101. Intersection #6 volumes will need to be changed and rerouted t other ramps to reflect this alternative. .. 1-2 2. Since this document represents an Area Plan and not a specif~~C project, as an overall planning document, all elements seem to be adequatE;ly addressed. As applications for projects present themselves, we would request that the appropriate environmental document be circulated to this agen~~y for review and comment. In addition, we concur that the city should institute an impact fee program for joint benefit transportation projects in cooperation with other Peninsula cities:. _.. _. _. _ _ Post-it' brand fax transmittal memo 7$71 s or Pages . ~ FEB-23-1994 14 44 FROM Carlson/SM 101185 February 18, 1994 Page 2 TO 15105407344 P.02 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this p to continue close correspondence on any new developments. Sh any questions regarding these comments, please contact Salimah staff at (510) 286-5583. Sincerely, JOE BROWNS District Director by :G.Ec. i75/ , LESILDA H. GEBRE Senior Transportation ct and wish 1 you have ~Sabur of my Planner cc: Mike Chiriatti, SCH Craig Goldblatt, MTC Patricia Perry, ABAG EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 LETTER 1: Department of Transportation, Blesilda H. l,ebreyesus, Senior Transportation Planner, February 18, 1994. 1-1: Comment noted. The Linden Avenue on-ramp to southbound U.S. 101 has been eliminated and the analyses have been revised accordingly in this FEIR. 1-2: Comment noted. As the author of the letter indicates, individual projects under the Area Plan will require appropriate environmental review and documentation. Environmental analysis of such projects will be circulated to the Department of Transportation for review and comment. 90 FEE-2E-1994 ~~::. PETE wtLSON covE~rooR 09 20 FROM TO ~~t~ Df ~&~i~l'ni$ GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1100 TENTH STREET SACRAMEI3T0 95844 February 22, 1994 STEVE CARLSON CITY OF SOL'iTfi SAN gF~NCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUT~i SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 4 P.01 ~.an~ ~.`~ ~ ~~a LEE lifiISSOM DIREGtOR I F •. ~;~F` ~~Y 99 /~/._ Q 2 Sub ect. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN SCH ;#: 93081040 - J ---... _ _ ... ._...,_.___..,.___ _ . _.._ ._ , _ .. .__ _. _,. ~_.. -..~,..__.... - , Dear STEVE CARt,SON 2-1 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named en ironmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period. is closed and none of the state agencic~R have Comaten s. This letter aaknotl~ledges that you have complied with the tate Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environm ntal documents, pursu~snt to the cslifornia Environmental duality Act. call Mark Goss at (916) 445-0613 if you have Iny questions Please regarding the environmental revie~r process. When co tatting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-d git State Clearinghouse number so that ae may respond promptly Sincerely, i +,~' f~t :. ;' f ~'~ . 1_r _ ~ ~r1 bstlt~" brand #ax;ra~smittal memo ~i0i/~ EA~2 /~/ viola 1510540734 I I i ~ of P~ - - 73 FEE-2E-1994 09 20 FROM TO 15105407344 P.02 Appr~rdic C Notico of Conlplet iel+ Mail a: Seste Clearin~Aru,e. 1x00 TeNl+ Sbett Sulsnente. CA 9S=1a 916N4S~61 ~ fast of 101 Area Plan _ sue. ~~8104p a'OJ"` nu" Carl son ~i,~,,,,: _ hh San Francisco cm,nR,.e~: Ste~~,_. 5,~ 400 brand Arenne ~,,.,,,; 41S 877-8535 c~ SouL~ n Frdne sca ~ 9401 ea.+~: ~n Mateo M1.N LN.Mw ems,,,,,; San Mateo e.*~.,,,,Lca,r,N,M~: Soute n rranelseo cra.. s+~.: S 101 zy cart: 94080 taa AcR,: ~.?~ •sudf Paieel No. NIA seelfae f`.p. Raaie: {,r: r:o.:n:,ck,: sti..«~,.: Its ~n~ vns,,: San Francisco Ba.r__~lall Creel _^_ ,~;~,,,,: _,~F Ai roort tis~.,r: Sotltllp„~I Pae. SeImB: .-• Aev~rel T>N CEOR: {,]NW u'•MiiP4~ NRL. pra dA.r. Q1eM[Gs~~nt DFarl, Car Q 51R tlMa Stst Ne,l d1'sA ^ FSnM ~a ®ta.n ~ ~ovrr p0 FONSt O oae. heal Aetkw Type Y i C'snenl iLn UoEac 0 SPeeife PVn Q Rswe ^ ~ea1~ .QCcMnlPfsnAnartnwat ppDtaK.r..l't.~ Q1'+eave ._„~........_ Q~'~~OV^""~ -,...- ptieeraiitY~~iv~sei"`"`''-'``''p' ~I'I1M+ --0~~~~ ~ p~ Plan ^ carumnn7 Pt.. O Si.s t~ O puod tWp?nKt Ml,p.aR.t OeretrPnrnl Tif}r aver Fieirdn: lar MCD pOlrrr: S~,R. Ae*r! barl.R IJTn^~p°"'°c '}*` . Q ewnn~+c~l: SrA. ~ anpre~..! ^ 11i~; wiu•.r uLa. (a Iriautinid: Sale. Acne E~IO,.n D ~~ Tyr -' O ~~ pw,n. Tn,tpeot TyOr p r...,r~.~ _. ... p Narse~n w.+e: rvr O~r~ r,eJrre Irtwrs Diserssr/ !~ pecwnwt ~1efUlYfCNiNi1 ®P{OEO tiIli~7CdYlj ~p3cRaM7M1h*aa:14. ~Vw. Qwt`q Q •~ric~nunt i.rd ®fanr L.elFn Nara D Sege S,ra. ~ a'.~ s~vg,Geeu~r.Ler ~) Ai Qi.lly a Deebtel6e:ee ®~ ~+~ ~ aaa"aAt'w;." Qc~a.,~i~ ~~~ D~ ~ ®selrywe ®aiNlik a,.wtro~e~es ®Onusl.l~L-e~*iar ~-op,lYiaVlUUa~~~ ®10akM.rar. La.s.a. ®FsanomieAelr ®ADYe tkrkulPail'fa ~ TMfinCia~lrtias ~ frn,bn.e frt.cn ® FscY ®RswsrisJAeb @ ~i~~ Q OMar Mrwrt IJAO varReeN~wrwrt 1~ry~YOfficl, iLireMuse,. Industrial . Bioscience researcA and pereloplltent, Hotel, Marina, Retail/Planned Industrial and Planned ~a~.reial Jad~130D~.~Y.4tr1a1___------~~--~-----•~~~-- ttRriret t0a~erBvtlee _ - - -- -- -_ .~ - -- -- CSii-RINGIIGiCB>f 0011T~GSs tltaAllG ~ (916) 446-0623 J]CYl' 7ILY 10 71pDICt[: ~ !~ 1GSACY Ai'ri TO SCU s ~ ~ ~/ S~ ~I~a 2 -?'Z- ~ q? sew/~ee..sre n..+. _ 1N1f G Maata ~t 110 _ t. ity is _ ~4 • MiDCS i ~...er ~e2: m~a ~ Q au. a@QIDRS. Tilacoc JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 2: State of California, Office of Planning and Research, Michael Chiriatti, Jr., Chief State Clearinghouse, February 22, 1994. 2-1: Comment noted. This letter acknowledges that the City of South San Francisco has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents. None of the State agencies indicated have comments on the Draft EIR. 93 MAR-21-1994 16 05 FROM $TA'I~ OF GL~oRMA • E)~IVtAONIMiENTAL p110TECT10N AOEiYCY DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL 700 H~1NZ AVf NtlE. SURE 200 $ERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94710 Mr. Steve Carlson Planning vepartment city of South San Francisco X400 Grand Avenue South son Francisco CA 94080 Dear Mr. Carlson: TO 15105407344 P.01 7 Past ~' ixand fax transmittal memo 767'1 ~r of pages 1b Fwm . Ca. Co. o ep e. vnor~e a ',^ p ~ FC.7 ~ 57~ + ~ ~ Fas a PLANNING March 9, 1994 3 It was a great pleasure talking to you last week. regarding extending the comment period for the East of 101 Area Plan. _.. The EIR Report is well ~rtitten; however, the report lacks important information regarding hazardous waste sites and conclusions about the impact on 3~irds and aquatic habitats. The Dep~rtmer~t is providing you with some comments on the hazardous waste sites and their impact on the ecology of the EI3t Plan Area. These are our general comments: 3-1 3. The East of 101 Plan area contains at least ten potential problem sites: some are still hazardous waste sites, some are under investigation, while others are not yet investigated. Some responsible parties have accepted deed restrictions, bud caps are not well maintained. The Department is overseeing the Oyster Point Marina Bay Dump Site Preliminary Endangerment Assess>~1ent (PEA) activities, and Removal Action of the Oyster Point HT 101 (CAL TRANS). Homart/EWRope site (Gateway accepted Deed restriction for lot 9 ) and Sharewater and other sites are also under investigation. 3-2 2, it may be difficult to get cooperation from so'e of the potential responsible parties: for example, it has ben hard to gather current information on the Oyster Point Marina Bay site. This should be -.1,nvestigated as you may f ind greater cQoperati-on through your plan. I 3-3 3. Caps of certain toxic waste sites are eroding and sp~~eading the hazardous materials, impacting the wetlands and aquati~ habitat. This has been noted in the literature and by ovr on-site inspections. 3-4 4. The EIR} report included some old information regarding the status of the toxic waste sites and ecology of the East of 101 area. Newer information is available through current literature which tae shall be glad to assist the author in locating. Since the designated EIR area is dominated by toxic waste sites, more research should be done. There are also many reports available on toxic wafitp sites and ecology of the Bay in general. For example, the groundwater {data) reports for a few sites should be available by now (Levin-Fricke, 1994). MAR-21-1994 16 05 FROM Mr. Steve Carlson March 3, 1994 TO 15105407344 P.02 Page Z 3-5 5. We shall be pleased to provide some technical assist~}nce to the author and the City of South San Francisco, We are planning to collect soil samples from the Oyster Point Dump Sit;+e and may provide you the analytical results. 3-6 6. Before future land use in the EIR Plan area is approved, eacrh site must be investigated prior to city issuing a city P]~anning and building permits. 3-7 7. The Oyster Point Dump has potential toxic waste problems which are under D'I'SC investigation. South Francisco City is conducting Preliminary Endangerment Assessment investigation which will be completed within 75 days. The site has several toxic hot_spot__. areas ~ which -nee~''r@'m~83atioii. ~ The Comity and the Har r District need to be brought into the current investigation of the~Marina Bay DunEp site which used to be a Municipal landfill. There ire several reports available on the sites which the EIR must consul. There is a potential for hazardous waste and toxic problems throughout the site. The site has a soil cap (ICF Kaiser for the State: Phase 1, 1989.) During our February i8, 1994, site visit, it was observed that currently the cap is eroding in several areas. 3-$ 8. Cal Site {see attachment) information documented Oyster Point site mitigation activities between 1980 to 1988. The st4tus of the the site is medium priority of PEA. Actual site cleanup ;activities began as early as 1975. 3-9 9. The author of the report should fist any and all references in (support of EIR conclusions presented in this report. Specific Comments: 3-10 1. The Department does not agree with the EIR find~ngs which (include Section 5, pages 14 through 18. 3-11 2. .Sea .Board. Papet Eompat~y: Leaking underground Storage ~ank at the Oyster Point Dump Site; this must be verified. TWO fuel tanks are on the site, and there are over i3 buildings at the site. 3-12 3. Figure 50 that shows two sites in the cluster number 4, but it (.is not described in table 54/55. 3-13 I4. Page 42, 43, 44 and some other parts of the report shows source reference as T?HSi_ St should be corrected as DTSC. 3-14 5. The Landfill gas {methane) has Deen monitored at the site. The methane gas s.~a~ detected at or above the lower explosiv?e Limit in five vaults in May of 1993 (Levin-Frake, August, 1993). 3-15 16 . I4ethane gasc sampling was conducted at Oyster Poi~1t Dump in August 3, 1993 after remediation of the five vaults boxes (letter MAR-21-1994 16 06 FROM TO 15105407344 P.03 Mr. Steve Carlson March 3, 1994 Page 3 report to Don Guluzy dated August 17, 1993). This needs further investigation. 3-16 ~• The Abandoned Rod and Gun Club Parking Lot appeals to have several inches of slag in some areas adjacent to the wager (Levin- Fricke, July 5, 1991}. This metallic slag should ~e removed immediately. 3-17 8. Both foil and groundwater is contaminated (City of South San Francisco, PEA investigation); therefore, additional sampling results are necessary to document the extent the contamination. There is an observed release; therefore, further action ~;s required as recommended by the City PEA Outlines (see attachment). ,. _ _. 3-18 9.Page 314. Soil./bentonite slurry wall, was built at the Koll Bite (400-5Q0 feet long, three feet thick} in 1981 to p~otect the Creek's water quality and aquatic habitat. (pers. com Lehi-Fricke), 1994}. The site is partially capped, but additional apping is needed. There is a potential for both soil and oundwater problems. We are concerned this area has many toxic Waste problems, some kno~m sites and some suspected sites not yet investigated, and request you to proceed with caution in planning. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 540-3806 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Rash B . Ghosh , Pl~ . D . Site Mitigation $ranch cc: April Page Moses. CEQA Tracking Center P.O. Box 806, Sacramento, CA 95812 Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Office of Planning and Research 140t? Tenth Street., Room 121 Sacramento, Ca 95814 ]UNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 3: State of California EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Dr. Rash B. Ghosh, March 9, 1994 3-1: Several hazardous waste sites that are either under investigation or have not been investigated in the study area. The East of 101 Area Plan EIR discusses nine of these larger problem sites in great detail, and identified all those sites which have government recorded hazardous materials on-site. This records search included the following agencies and source lists: • EPA Superfund Sites • EPA National Priority Lists • EPA Federal Superfund Liens • CWM Solid Waste Information System List • EPA Hazardous Waste Generators • WRCB Underground Leaking Tanks • CWMB Hazardous Waste Substance Sites • CDHS Bond Expenditure Plan • EPA CAL Sites • HMDM Waste Discharge System (NPDES Permits) • EPA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act • WRCB Waste Management Unit Discharge Systems This search does not include all sites of environmental contamination or risk. Its accuracy is limited to the accuracy of the recorded lists maintained by the governmental agencies. It is expected that when project specific development is proposed in any of the areas with potential hazardous materials, agencies such as USEPA, CaIEPA, and the RWQCB would enforce State and federal laws governing the generation, clean-up, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Contact with these agencies should occur prior to any development in the East of 101 Area. 3-2: Comment noted. We concur with Dr. Ghosh's comment that it may be difficult to get cooperation form some of the potential responsible parties. The City of South San Francisco should continue to seek cooperation with the various government agencies involved. 3-3: In this comment, Dr. Ghosh is specifically referring to the caps on the Oyster Point Dumps site and Lot 9 of the Gateway site. In addition, Dr. Ghosh has concerns that other caps in the East of 101 97 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ]UNE 1994 Area are not maintained properly. Language addressing Dr. Ghosh's comments has been added to page 322 and 323 in this FEIR. 3-4: Additional information has been obtained from Dr. Ghosh and incorporated into pages 322 and 323 of the EIR as appropriate and available. The Levine-Fricke (1994) report that Dr. Ghosh refers to was not available to the consultant prior to publication of the Draft EIR. 3-5: Comment noted. We appreciate the efforts made by the Department of Toxic Substances Control in providing us with additional information on the Oyster Point Dump site and other sites within the East of 101 Area. Revisions and additions have been made as appropriate in this FEIR. Site specific analytical information is not included in this report for all sites, since this is a program level EIR. When site-specific development is proposed in this area, the Department of Toxic Substances Control will be contacted for site-specific information. 3-6: Comment noted. 3-7: Comment noted. Page 322 of the DEIR has been amended as appropriate in this FEIR. The City of South San Francisco would appreciate the continued support of the DTSC in remediation of the East of 101 Area. 3-8: Comment noted. This information has been included in this FEIR. 3-9: Chapter 7 includes all references and contacts used in preparation of this EIR. Additional references have been added as applicable to page 561 in this FEIR. 3-10: The sections on pages 14 through 18 referred to by the commentor are intended to serve as a summary of the information contained within the body of the EIR, and they address many different environmental topics. Since the commentor is primarily addressing hazardous materials issues in his letter, it is assumed that Dr. Ghosh does not agree with the summary of the Hazardous Materials sections on page 14. In response to this comment, new impacts and mitigation measures numbered HAZ-Dl, HAZ-P2 and HAZ-M3 have been added to the EIR in this docment. These impact statements show that public exposure to hazardous wastes 98 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES could occur as a result of development in the East of 101 Area unless adequate remediation measures are implemented. 3-11: Dr. Ghosh feels that there may be more than two leaking fuel tanks on the sites. Table 55 of the DEIR has been amended in this FEIR to reflect the commentors concerns. It is possible that there are more than two leaking fuel tanks. However, this document's accuracy is limited to the accuracy of the recorded lists maintained by the governmental agencies. The scope of this EIR does not include site specific investigation, and these conditions cannot be verified at this time. 3-12: Comment noted. Table 54 and 55 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 3-13: Comment noted. The DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 3-14: In this comment, Dr. Ghosh is referring to landfill gas monitoring performed in subsurface utility vaults at the Oyster Point Marina and Park in May 1993. Page 322 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect Dr. Ghosh's comments. In addition, a new mitigation measure has been added in this FEIR to require remediation of contaminated sites pursuant to State and federal requirements. 3-15: Comment noted. The DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect Dr. Ghosh's comments. In addition, a new mitigation measure has been added in this FEIR to require remediation of contaminated sites pursuant to State and federal requirements. 3-16: Comment noted. The DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect Dr. Ghosh's comments. 3-17: Comment noted. The scope of this EIR does not include any site- specific sampling. Site-specific remediation and testing would occur when individual development projects were proposed in the East of 101 Area. 3-18: Comment noted. The DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect Dr. Ghosh's comments. 99 4 South San Francisco Zlnified SchooC District ADMINISTRATION Dr. Richard J. Rigg Super~ntenoent January 25, 1994 Mr. Steve Carlson Senior Planner City of South San Francisco P. 0. Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94083 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised) on the East of 101 Area Plan Dear Mr. Carlson: Ktv~l /.. J JAN 2 `' 1994 PLANNING BOARD OF TRUSTEES Romolo J. Braschl ShirlN Hoch Raymond Latham Bonnie J. Ng Lai Vittoria Von Sehail 4-1 Please be advised that the School District does serve a limited number of "Alan Bill" children. So far we have been able to accommodate all requests for space at each grade level, not always for the parents first choice of school, but usually~in the same neighborhood .(Page 436 - Revised Draft EIA - East of 101). Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, C G~ lw~ ~~ -/ ~~ ;~ ~ anice B. Smith Assistant Superintendent/ Business Services ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 398 "B" STREET SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080 (415)877-8700 Fax-(415)583-4717 sc ]UNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 4: South San Francisco Unified School District, Janice B. Smith, Assistant Superintendent/Business Services, January 25, 1994. 4-1: Page 436, paragraph 1 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 101 Board of Trustees Romolo J. Braschi Shirlee Hoch SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT February 17, 1994 Raymond Latham Mr. Steve Carlson Senior Planner Bonnie J. Ng Lee City of South San Francisco Victoria Von Schell P • 0 . Box 711 South San Francisco CA 94083 Superintendent Dear Mr. Carlson: Dr. Richard J. Rigg RE: Comments of the South San Francisco Unified School District on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the East of 101 Area Plan This letter is in response to the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed East of 101 Area Plan dated January 19, 1994. 398 "B" Street South San Francisco California 94080 ~a15) 8n-87oo Fax - (415) 583-4717 Preliminarily, we wish to thank the City for incorporating many of our concerns, as previously expressed in our letter of September 21, 1993, in the revised draft. Issues surrounding the adequacy of the public school system to serve planned growth in the City of South San Francisco are of paramount importance not only to the City and the District, but to the public which we serve as well. The ultimate goal of any plan adopted by the City should be to insure that adequate school facilities will be available to serve children that will be generated by new development authorized under the plan. With this goal in mind, we offer the following comments: 1. Page 16, para. 10 (c): while impact to school facilities under the Directed Growth Alternative will be less than that associated with any of the alternatives which allow residential development, there will nonetheless be impact because new employment opportunities will attract new families with children. This should be noted. 2. Page 27, table 2, Muni-P3: we concur that the development of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would cause significant impacts on existing educational facilities and transportation systems, and that these impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. The mitigation that the District itself can require is severely limited by the provisions of Government Code section 65996, and by the maximum developer fee which can be imposed by the District. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative cannot be adopted because there is a feasible alternative--the Directed Growth Alternative--which would not result in significant impact to schools. 13. Page 33, table 3, Muni-M3: we concur that the development of the Market Oriented Alternative would cause significant impacts on 5 Mr. Steve Carlson February 17, 1994 Page Two 5_3 existing educational facilities and transportation systems, and that these impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. We incorporate the discussion in paragraph 2 above, which applies with equal force to this alternative. 5-4 4. Page 436, para. 2: the text should be changed to note that the District, not the City, assesses the school impact fee. The State Allocation Board recently raised the maximum fee which can be charged to commercial and industrial development to 28 cents per square foot. 5-5 5. Page 443-444: the District concurs with the discussion in the Revised Draft EIR concerning impacts to schools which would result from adoption of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative and specifically concurs that this alternative would result in an unmitigatable significant environmental impact. The text in paragraph 3, at page 444, should be corrected to recognize that the maximum residential fee authorized by state law has been increased by *~ $1.72 per square foot by action of the State Allocation Board. It should be noted as well that, even if the District were to raise the fee to this level, the short fall between the fees that could be collected and the cost of facilities necessary to provide for additional students would still be significant. 5-6 6. Pages 452-444: the District concurs with the discussion concerning the impacts to schools which would result from adoption of the Market Oriented Alternative and incorporates the comments made in paragraph 5 above. In summary, either the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative or the Market Oriented Alternative, if adopted, would result in significant impacts to schools within the South San Francisco Unified School District. Because these impacts cannot be mitigated, and because there exists an alternative (the Directed Growth Alternative) which would not result in these significant impacts, neither of the alternatives which allow residential development should be adopted by the City. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. We will shortly be providing our comments for your consideration on adoption of the East of 101 Area Plan itself. Yours truly, k~ R and J. Ri Ed~!'~~~3~~ gg~ Superintendent of Schools EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 LETTER 5: Soutb San Francisco Unified School District, Richard J. Rigg, Superintendent of Schools, February 17, 1994. 5-1: Page 16, paragraph 7 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 5-2: Comment noted. This comment concurs with the conclusions of the Draft EIR. 5-3: Comment noted. This comment concurs with the conclusions of the Draft EIR. 5-4: Page 436, paragraph 2 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 5-5: Page 444, paragraph 3 and page 454, paragraph 3 of the DEIR have been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 5-6: Comment noted. This comment concurs with the conclusions of the Draft EIR. 104 FEE-22-1994 15 23 FROM C~! »d Counpr etsr~ frsn~0ew Hrl ~, Jartr 1Wyor Me~ismt~ ~~ as n~.weal ~ ~~ :~.~. i4At k. 9reeb ~rrour ri ~ ~nnc February i & i 994 TO 15105407344 P. 10 __~... L '0~' ~`'"y"'' Mr. Stew Cattson ,~,,,,~~„ Senior Planner e~d~oa.s plarnirte Division p.0. sox 7'f 1 $o~ San Francasoo. CA 8417®3 Ra: Eaat of 1a1 Revised Ares PiattJ Dn3tt Er+vi_r9nmenteh i~pmct ~tnpoR Deer Mr. Carlson: 6-1 Thank you for givat0 San Frarxisco tnterrreticnat Airport the o~portunlty to review the Cify of South San Frertc~ato's Revised East of 101 Aria Plan (the "Revised Area Pten"} end tree Revised Ares l'fan Dratt fcnvirvnme el impact Report (t#te "Revised DEIR"}, We have reviewed the Revised AtB~fl i~an and the Revised Dic'tR and h~ava the following mat comments. , Arav Piers ertd the Revised DEIR. ~ ~ ~€ siw Fl~rnasco nr~ew~ow~ ~+oaHr • su+ Huux~a ixu~u~ s+>ze ~ tas++a+~ ~;~ ~n • ~ ycts ~s f 1. at 0 with A: Indicated h our OMobet: 13~ 1893 4attar feperdEng the origirt0i d`$R Plan attd the DE1R~ wa Cortar wtrh the City's Selecsiort of the DseQoQ Growt Attemattve as the mast spprapriate plant for iha use end deve4apment of ttt0 pro oarbrsd by the Revised Aces Plan. We etoo indicated in our October T3 ist6e that manyr south S~1 Frartcieoo res~errts srtd businesses expressed concelr resieential uses 8re irtt~onsistvrit trot ortty with the Airport's operations, txlt w the City'a aybafsr~tial itidustr~ai and ~gt6ctnobgy businass~. We agree the new tan8uege added to the iZevisetl Area Pian at p+agv 57 trt support of P icy LU-12 helps to better oxplsot the vsristy of potential o~rtflirxs between resic~antiat uses and existing uses and policies of ate Cihr. .: I The oampatibiiity of tits Directed Growrth +4lternsthre w~Vt e~~ ertd projedsd uses {n !fie ~ is a siQrirFiocar~t factor b the ~oontinued en nrnerAst and economic vitality cf she ctty. Even if K is not possible tv etimi[tate~ gii adverse ernricananentsl lntpads that may rascrtt from the Directed Growth Aite ive. the compatibility cf #tHS sitvn>+~ve Mrfift eadsttrtp and proposed uses is +tainiY en important bYecrid'ma conaideratian" p~uattt do CEt]A in ev$laafng ~e Revised FEE-22-1994 15 24 FROM "~~,+_ '::art:.. s ...:. Mr. Steve Carlson Fetxttsry 18, 1994 Rage 2 6-2 6-3 TO 15105407344 P. 11 i 2. Corn>satmil_~~E31s~ -Puns and Policies. Qn pa~e t33, the Revlaed DEIR contains a discussion o4 eirp~ott rsleied policies and n~gutatians. Putwant to CEQA t3ui4sllnas Section 18t25, tai l:iR must dw~cs the consistency of the proposed project with applioeble general plans ar~d regional plans. Section i5i30 of the CEQA Guiidelines al$o provides that they E!R must Discuss the signiFic~nt wmuletive impacts yr a project. Purzuant to Sections 15125 and 1bt30, rve request ckarrficetiani in the text on paps 8'.i that the ReviseG Area Plan is consistent with San ~ Frarrc[soo intarnatiionsl Airport's November 9, 1992 approved Master -ian ("Ma tar Plan's end that the Meatier Pt~ct is incorporated h the Revised DElR's : nalysts of potential project impala. In addition, ~ would be ,amt to note an p 83, that the Master Plan is supported 5Y and is consistent witi'ti the Rai ac Air~sort System Plsrr 8~at has bean prepared i~'I' the -Vletropolitan Trtr~slportstion Commission. i 3. Developer's 4maact~ee. Orr pogo 197, the Revised DEI~t indicates that a poterrtiel~r siprrit~cerrt impact at the Arne Pram is that it does nqt establlafr e means fa funding projods vrhich sltrYe both the City of South San, Francisco and other Peninsula cities. in response, the Reviaed DElR proposed Mltipation Measure CtR-0i, which provides sa fotio~ws: "Th~o City of South Sent i~randeoo at~outd instltuto an impact flee fa joint bensttt transportation F~rojects in cooperation vvrttt other Panif18u18 cities." ~ls a pre{iminetY matter, we mote that the wording a~f C!R-0 doss not appeagr to ba mnslstarR throuphnut the Revised DEIR. The 2~rt a AeDa 20 indicates that the fee ettoutd ba developed with tl~o C~ of Btiebestie, wi lla tl~ text on pBQe i 9~7 i~ttdud86 dher 1'enirtsula cities.. Moreover, ~ is quesdonabls whether the turtdltrg rrrachsu~ism, cis opposed to the tre~fic itself, oonstltutss an envitorttttentat impact at alt. geceus~ sn Etlri ig nit intended tQ bo a finandr~ doaxnsnt, ll ire unnacasaary to idantifj~ a specific funding mechanism fvr >iddrassing pottmtiat sree~+Hlde traffic impactsl The City maryr not wish to Identify a speafic proposed finding rnecttiartism at tt is time, as tt would Ds suftlctont lot purposes of campttrir~g wlti~ CEQA m idant spselfic proposvd #rafflc mlt~atlan rnsssures wirho-rt reficr~anr~ to the est~tDfis ant of s ~ p~m, ~ Tha Airport reco~lzea the dlffleulty lhat the Ct~r of South S Francisco end ottrer focal }urisdedor~s face fi iundiirtQ and implornanting portation proJocts that proviQo an area or rogiar~vride ber~sflf We also carxFur tRat an FEE-22-1994 15 24 FROM TO 15105407344 P. 12 Mr. Stave Gei~lson February 1 B, ~ 39a Page 3 ' 6-3 impdd fee program ie one mechanism fhat warrants further oonsi~eratlort in Cont. addre88lnB ~~ probfem. In fad thA Ci#y and County of Ssn Fra~cisoo hss instituted development fees to adr~'esa its transportatian funding RrobOems. 3sn FrertGisoo, howevw, is o eir~le large Jurisdittbn, and is able t0 plan, fund and aocact~ie trsnspofiatian ~npmvaments within Its own berdws, We reC gnlze that . &outl't San Frandsco wi11 bg required to work with a potentially larAe~numbAr of . jurisdictions h preparing aAd implementire sat eppropriabe arse-wide pco~am. In this rsQard, it is important to Rota that CEQA does not t to tonal agencies additional powers independent of those granted by other is e. (Public Resources Code Secban 210x4}. There~Eo~+e, it Mitigation Measure C1 R-0Z b retained, it would ba useful to clarify in the text of the Revised DF1R that tits Cflyr ' artd other lotei s4ertcies would tav ~aquirsd to cflrnpiy with alt ; spptlcabis provisions of ley-, particularly vovernmerrt Coda 9eccttor~ taflmD ; t ., k, crsstmrtlrts artiy fee pcograret. VYe apprsdate the opportunit)r to co-nmsnt art the Revised ~ Plan and thv f~evtsed DEiR end bolt forward iQ your respartsss. j Slnwnsly, JOHN C TA6 sidmm~ , 1Bureau of Planning JC; rttb ca Steve Salomon EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACr REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 LETTER 6: San Francisco International Airport, John Costas, Bureau of Planning Administrator, February 1S, 1994. 6-1: Comment noted. This comment concurs with the conclusions of the Draft EIR. 6-2: Page 83 and pages 100-105 of the DEIR have been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 6-3: Mitigation Measure CIR-D1 has been revised in Chapter 2 of this FEIR to establish consistency within the EIR. The City of South San Francisco concurs with the commentor that financing mechanisms need not be identified in an EIR. However, identification of a financing mechanism for joint benefit traffic improvements has been specifically requested by the City of Brisbane, so this impact and mitigation measure have been retained in the Final EIR as a courtesy to Brisbane. The commentor's recommended language regarding compliance with all applicable provisions of law has been added to Mitigation Measures ClR-Dl, CIR-P1 and CIR-M1. 108 FEE-22-1994 15 19 FROM 7-1 7-2 To: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Planning Division City of South San Francisco fTorn: JoRn Lucchesi Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Re: Environmental Impact Report for East of i41 Area Plan Revised Draft, January 1994 TO 15105407.344 P.02 .~y~' Y r. ~,~ ~ ~ ~ 2 1994 ~ ~~NNIIVG February 1$, 194 page 1 of 1 The foAowing is a summary of comments /concerns /questions: EIR page 161 Regarding the identification of sites west of 141 for 18 very-low and 12 low-income h using units to mitigate impact POP D-1.... how were the two sites noted at the bottom of the page) selected? What criteria should be used to identify sites for these uses? ' (How car<'the proper location of these dwelling types contribute to tReir success and r~tinimize neighborhood impact? ie. proximity to mixed use areas? infilt sites rather than isolated bites to avoid "project" identity?..} EiR page 201 ' I "(3} Koll Site Transportation Issues" It appears that this topic is ony discussed under U1e Directed GrowtR Afternative.. if sc~, is it to be assumed that the issues discussed here are identical under the other Plan Alternatives or that there are rto Kola Site Transportation Issues under the other Plan Alternatives? Do ihei residential aspects of the other Plan Ahematives raise any unique Kol! Site Transportation lssue:i that are avoided with the Preferred Alternative? ~ 7-3 EIR Appendix B1 Area Plan Policies Area Plan comments to be forwarded separately 7 7-4 EIR Appendix Mailing of NOP List does not appear to include City of Brisbane. EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 7: City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, John Lucchesi, February 18, 1994. 7-1: Rick Moriano of Carbone, Moriano & Company, a commercial real estate consultant, identified the two affordable housing sites in a memo dated June 8, 1992. These recommendations were made to Ben Golvin of BRIDGE Housing in completion of the South San Francisco Affordable Housing Site Survey. The two identified sites are not required to be included in the amended Housing Element, and are only identified at all to give an indication of the types of sites that may be selected when the Housing Element is amended. Mitigation Measure POP-D1 has been revised to require identification of a methodology to replace the affordable housing currently shown for the Koll site and does not require designation of particular sites. 7-2: The issues addressed in the section titled "Koll Site Transportation Issues" on page 201 of the DEIR are issues which would be similar under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative and the Market Oriented Alternative. However, the DEIR uses the trip generation rates of the Directed Growth Alternative at intermediate (2003) and buildout development levels to assess the possible access alternatives for the Koll site. The residential aspects of the alternatives to the Area Plan do not raise any unique Koll Site Transportation Issues that are avoided with the Preferred Alternative, however, volume to capacity ratios and Level of Service analysis results would vary due to differing trip generation rates. 7-3: Comment noted. 7-4: The City of Brisbane was inadvertently excluded from the mailing of the NOP. However, the City of South San Francisco mailed the original Draft EIR to the City of Brisbane, and the City of Brisbane commented on that document, which helped to create a scope for the Revised Draft EIR. The City of South San Francisco has made considerable efforts to include the City of Brisbane in the planning process for the East of 101 Area. These efforts include the inclusion of specific traffic analyses and subsequent Plan policies to address the concerns of the City of Brisbane. The City of South San Francisco also plans to continue to work cooperatively with the City of Brisbane in coordinating specific development projects and transportation improvements. 110 FEE-22-1994 15 25 FROM FEB 22 '~ 1'! ~ X01? n I rA ~ ~ nn papa G~ ~ TO 15105407344 P. 13 Q C4~ Offices ~'~ 150 Narth Hill Drive, Suite 40 ~~~ Brisbrtnc, Tdtap$ono (~i1b) X67-161b ~ I+'Ax (47.1 46'7.4AR9 February ?.x,19'94 plrumir~g Cornnrission Chairman Robert iNsntagl~rti South San Francisco P7Amm~g Commission Ia carts of St$ve Corlsott, S~ior Planner Plartaitriz Division, GiY of South Salt Ptitnciaco P.4. Box ?1 I South San Tranascor CA 94083 Dsar Choismsn Ma~tegaai~ l~~W~ Tho City flf 13risbdne v+atcome~ and apgrecyste= ti-E o~sesstuoit.y th rrm~.~~ en thn revised Droll F.nvironmerrtAl Impact Report fbr the F.ASt of 14I Arts Play. We especiaity apptodMe the cfPori rn~ in the revisions to address the issues ro~ised in Our previous comments a~~t! . to ac3cnowtedgc that Drisbsee and Soni~h Son Trnncixa share more than mutual boundaries aad that a cooperative v~oaici>fg relationshep ttetweat ho[h jutitdictictn~ ill r.~~erttiat ~ address both eYtsii~tg fi»d potorrtQt•envirOrtrltontal impacts oi'titis and other projects. The projected loud use changes ptopoaad irr nc~ East a¢ 102 Area P ~ ttnd evaluatad in fire mvi~ed Draft Lm-rrtmmd-tnl Impact Report are of utmost c, to the City of Srisbarte, We trust thv City of Svtitth Sant Frsndaea wi!! sepiously cflnsider the a~ttachAii comments artd take aflpro~rlatz responsive action duti'ing the course of the prepontion of the i ;nal EiR. If there is any assistRace that ~1d be pmvided by the city of Brisbarxt, please do not hesitate to contact our staff Very truly yours, L~ara A. Jahneor~ 34~leyar Brisbane City Council f,OMh4BN7S OT! REVISED DRA1•Z EIR EAST OF 141 AREA PLAN i 8-~ i 8-2 i follolwi~ commatts pertain to ttation and Siratlation im~_ The F1R concludes that under the build-out level of development tfie transpartaaon impacts are so severe that imltmvtmc~nts to the transportation system alone csnrtot mitig$te them. Theretbt+ey order the rref`e~*ed elte'rr-Ativr., Paliry l U-13, the f`ity wrsvld trar3c dtwelapcrietst for its impacts on the foadway s~~ns so chat the City oauld Ittait future dtvalopme~t r~nce the available oapacitic8 u+cre use. This apptnach depeasds upon n doer and greo~eso vensponat'sas mold us that ~+++pacts ~ be aootrrateiy predicted, To that slid, we would like to paatt out aotttz me~thodoiog~ problans in the traasQortatio>~cirrsalatioo anstysts~ t2tsttt stiwld bra ao~eoced in cite Final EIR: 1. The roadway system c>m Figure 23 sMuld be extended northerly to include Sierra Poant aad the roadways scoeRaing the Sierra Point peninsula to present a canplete picture of the East of 141 Study Area. Jvreadictianal boundaaes should also 6e shown on this F~.irc to distis;guish impacted inoersections vrilhin aril o>,tsida of Sout]i Scut l~encrsco's jui~sdictiar-. Fcx example, lntstsea's4n #I, the Sl$. ITS 1Q1 eA=rams, nr'eeissnrs i'amj~" is JiCptL4Cnted thraughottt thG text as order the jurisdktien of South San Franco, when it is actually within Brisb®ne'a r~rroicipal boundatie:, 2. The methodology far th$ baseline assvmptiona includes "acpeete$ increases in tra!]ic volumes fiver existing Ievsts" ~. 1?'8). Hower !t was eoneJnded that the etl8eta ofre~c>t$t tgowth on tba roadway system would actually decrease (p. 180}. The projected decrease is attributed to `a shift iii San Mateo Cauuiy n~idenGt from ~votia~g in Sae Franaeco to wotkieg in Santa ~Clars end attn Mateo ~.airrties" and a heavier rtliarrea on tsat~it. We contend tbe# the aasumptioas are tutsupportod by evidmac. Reoaat analysis by the t~t3- of Brisbetta has ca~nfnr,ed an average area annual growth rate of 1.1°6 per year. Tlva is conslstea-t wiilt paojahiema from ester agencies, rtmgi:sg from .93~/e - l . t 39/n. 8van though t+aductlmr8 to escisfsng volumes were not made is thaEast of 30] FAR aneiysis "to CT ',J tirirl filh;CfiTCT f'II I~If'1S1J 07 •CT 1-CGT-77-'77J FEE-22-1994 15 25 FROM TO 15105407344 P. 14 I bo consenstive" (p. 180 it appears that the 1>eaclinc assum~fons urtder•represea[ gotetttial im~cts. 8-3 3, lmpacis are Rather underestimated by the analyysis regrecer~ed in Table 27, 3~, 36 attd sirtt~at, in that thr Airport and Lirtden~ ! SB 10! onamrtp (inoersection !!6) is included in the analysis. ~f the Oyster Feint interchange #s represented in the Sasa[ine Corrd~tlorts, the Linden intersection simt~td be ditrusatod. Thos. they trips aasignetl to Intersection fib moat be redistributed. Tt is likd that the resnh of this radis[rlbution wooJd bs s further d eclicue in s at intasectiotts in the vicinity. 8-4 4. Some eaplanativn slroalct bo g'nrr~ regarduig build-vut f tlx Terrabay Project and the hook-iaraps that were required the project conditions. Neitker are included rn the analysis ahhou lz the project is ,identified. The follawitg commerrts pertain to t~8t~~~ 8-5 7hc EIR identifies ilist the least of 101 /area plan wfll ' inier'ections osrtside of the East of it)1 Candor a that mitigations wlll be necessary. One eremple of this is inter iott #I, the 'sta.ssors amps' wHioh is west of Iiigl>4+-rry~IUl. Mitigatiofls r®querad at thin inteneection of an int~erer~ed+ntes devdopmeer~t level include the itistaltation of trat~c signals (P 2130) and perhaga, additional through-lanes (P'P. 206y 210), As tad earlier, I>21rrs'a~;tivn ail is within Bresbane's jurisdictio~tsi 'mite. How does the City of South San ~rsnc3sco propose to imp the required mitigtKions in an adjacent jurisdiction? Tim Sut mart' of Fmptacts end Mitigation M ensures, p. 20. notes thRt ttte tads of an taaiabiished means of flttxfing far ttaflla mitigations is a slgcant itnpad. 'fhc mitigation rtteasare propo®ed (C1ft 1~1) ! is a dcvelopet"s impaa ~ "developed i>y coopcrateo~, with the (~' p od' 8risbarty for joint ttaasportation projects," Thai tfescriptn of` mitigation is insuff dent, Tl~e measure should tl~tr ~ is a commitment to Rind the acxual tests of irnprovemertts in~dircCt relationship to the responsibility fflr ~'ectirtg the lave! of abtvice, Tl+e n~easvne should apeatk to how such sn impact fee pr~rs~Cn can be implemented and w}mt enter ~.trizdictitmtrJ agreements ao~rld ba required. ~ FEE-22-1994 15 26 FROM TO 15105407344 P. 16 roes ss • ~~ .r .v.a ~ ~.. ~ ..... .. ---- j I I The follo~rin,g eommants petlain to ifse j~_5hes~rttter arxly~:. ' 8-6 Ths portion of Sistrn Point in South San Francisco is ref~errod to in tlx BIR as the Koll prvpeuiy, socosiimes as a single site, sotrt~times is a package with Shearwatec. There is aosrK confusion ih the ,ry app, a4~•45} regarding the load use dessgnatlon fc~r the properh-. Thy text soya Piastaod mistrial but the reap aM~wa a mixed Planned industrial and P"lanmed Commercial dts+ig~tian, The analycra ackutmledSds tbai rite oQily wrrcnt eooess t~ title DrppeRy is thrwglr Sierra Point in Brirbana (pp. 8G, 93' . A trumbe of aeocas Slternatives are examae-od {P. 202), none ~ tireitiy satisl'nctory. Policy CIR-S, in GffCCt, k~ve~s socess planair- ~aad impact acvlyss; to Qame future Lima snd husetenfi the Ko11 p jece sponsor with the te~ons+"bility for ooastrueting and ,nod improvenxr~ta. The analysis should e,cDiore broad, ultl- ~risdic6ottatl approaches to aoccss Vi'e auggeat thai an alternativC that connoc~s the cntiro S'rssra Post peninsula to Shearwatt and t'?yltter Pe3M to the Aotrth and to the Cand~sticic 1Me~d+ange 4 th+C zrareh ba examined as to hs potential benet3te ro both the Terra ~~ ProP~Y ~ the 101 Corridor. Aipptvpriate pnfieY u3$ tilSO be int;ludod t4 snnpbesiu conatnrctit-e, ooopetative ti- jurisdietionaE approaclZCS to devaloping aaeas to the Koll pr+~gerry and adjAC~ lancfiu. ~ JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 8: City of Brisbane, Clara A. Johnson, Mayor, February 22, 1994. 8-1: Figures 23 and 27 have been revised to include jurisdictional boundaries, and are included in Appendix A. The portions of Sierra Point within the City of Brisbane and access alternatives to Sierra Point are not shown in these figures since they are significantly outside of the East of 101 Study Area. These areas have been studied in the Draft EIR, and they are shown graphically in Figure 37. The DEIR does not state that the "scissors ramps" are located in South San Francisco; the ramps are in Brisbane, as shown in the revised Figures 23 and 27. 8-2: Future (year 2000) Baseline traffic levels were derived by summing the estimated traffic volumes from each of the foreseeable contributing elements of future traffic in the area. It was determined that there were four contributing elements: regional growth, San Francisco International Airport (SETA) expansion, locally approved projects, and increased local building occupancy. Regional traffic growth was estimated from year 2010 traffic projections from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Interpolation to year 2000 showed that on regional roadways within the vicinity of the East of 101 area, year 2000 volumes are expected to decrease relative to 1990 levels. For this component of future Baseline traffic, estimated growth was assumed to be zero. Estimates of traffic growth from the SFIA expansion were taken directly from the SFIA Master Plan FEIR. The additional traffic from Phase 1 of the SFIA expansion (as reported in the SFIA document) were included in the Baseline volume estimate of traffic on U.S. 101. Baseline traffic levels also include traffic from local projects that have been approved but not yet constructed. The approved projects in South San Francisco are described by size and type in the report. No approved projects were identified by the City of Brisbane. Baseline traffic levels accounted for potential increases in the occupancy of existing buildings in the East of 101 area. The existing occupancy rate is approximately 90 percent. An increase to 95 percent could produce a commensurate 5.5 percent increase in 115 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 traffic. Assumed in Baseline traffic levels is a 5.5 percent growth in existing traffic volumes. 8-3: Comment has been noted. Linden Avenue on-ramp to southbound U.S. 101 has been eliminated and the analyses have been revised accordingly in this FEIR. 8-4: The Terrabay project has not been identified as an approved project the City of South San Francisco; consequently, neither the land use nor the roadway improvements (hook ramps) associated with it were included under Baseline conditions. The Terrabay project is not situated within the East of 101 Area; it was therefore not included as a component of the future land use alternatives. Lastly, the Terrabay hook ramps are not a recommended improvement because they would not mitigate traffic impacts of development in the East of 101 Area. 8-5: As stated in the response to Comment 6-3, CEQA does not require identification of funding mechanisms for mitigation measures suggested in an EIR. In fact, Mitigation Measure CIR-D1 is only included in the EIR as a courtesy to the City of Brisbane, and is not required under CEQA. As stated in the DEIR, the City of South San Francisco plans to work cooperatively with the City of Brisbane and other local cities to develop a transportation impact fee, and it is acceptable under CEQA for the details of such a fee to be worked out separately. The DEIR, as revised in this document, gives adequate information on the types of traffic improvements that will be necessary to allow for plan implementation. Moreover, this document is a program EIR which specifically calls for the creation of impact fees to address impacts that may occur on a general basis. Since this is a program level document and individual project review will be required, any impacts of proposed development, specifically the Koll site, will be identified and appropriately mitigated. At that time, appropriate mitigation fees will be required. 8-6: Page 44 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect consistency between the land use designation shown for the Koll, and that described in the text. The Koll site is designated as Mixed Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial. 116 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The commentor's request for analysis of access alternatives for the Koll site that extend northward to Candlestick Park is outside the scope of the Area Plan and this EIR. Since the Area Plan is only concerned with development in South San Francisco, neither it nor its EIR could logically call for roadway extensions that would primarily serve Brisbane or the 101 Corridor as a whole. 117 FEE-24-1994 15 37 FROM ~°~Y cry ~~ ~~ ~ ~~jFO~~~ TO CITY OF DALY CITY 333-90TH STREET DALY CITY. CA 9b015.1895 DuoMC: t115f 001-9000 9-1 Steve Carlson, Senior Planner liepartment of Economic and Community Development City of South San Francisco 400 Cnand Avenue .... . P.O. Boz 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: East of 181 Area Plan and Revised Draft EIR; Dear Mr. Carlson: ~~ Thank you for the opportunity to review these documents. The to instigate and produce this plan is commendable. 15105407344 P.01 i i February 22, 1993 effort expended 9 The plan's concept, goals and policies appear to be compatible with Daly Cir' 's plans. I have no specific comments or suggestions. Daly City remains interested in the Manning process, the adopted product and the future dev~clopmeut of the Brea. I Please contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, M k Planning I?ivision Rostlt~' brand fan transmittal memo 7671 ~vof Degas - .2 Te Fien~ Ca Co. Dept, one +- ~!C .5~fo - 73 ~ ~ Fe: x ~ ~~~~~~ I FEe,~ ~~ ..~'yy4......... __. _..: _...... ~N~NG JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 9: City of Daly City, Mark Satre, Planning Division, February 22, 1994. 9-1: Comment noted. This letter acknowledges that Daly City has no comments or concerns regarding the East of 101 Area Plan and its related DEIR. 119 FEE-2E-1994 09:21 FROM TO 15105407344 P.03 10 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County {CICAG{ County Government Center , 590 Hamilton Street, 2nd Floor Redwood Ciry, C~lifomia 94063 (415 363-41 b 1 10-1 February 'l'l, l994 ~~ 6 .. ~ Cv ti,~ tiQ P.U. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 i _... , . Dear Mr~: `Carl son:. --- SUBJECT: C/CAG Airport Land Use C.orrimii:tee (ALUC? Staff .omments on: (1) the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Rep rt .on the East of 101 Area Plan, and ('2} the Revised Dra t East of 101 Area Plan Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner P]annin.g Division City of South San Francisco The following comments are ALUC staff comments on the above-refe}~enced documents. Although the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG) hasitaken action on a previous version of the East of 101 Area Plan, a formal det rmination of the consistency of the Revised Draft East of I01 Area Plan with ~he Airport Land Use Plan should be requested by the C1ty of Svutlr San Francisco (see below). ; Comments on the Revised Uraft East of I01 Are Plan At its meeting on November 18, 1993, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (CJCAG) unanimously determined that the previous ver~slion of the East of 101 Area Plan, originally published in May 1993 and reviMsed in August 1993, was consistent with the airport/land use compatibility standards and policies for San Francisco International Airport contained ;rr the Airport Land Use Plan, as adopted March 26, 1981 (see attached letter to Mayor Joseph -i=ern~kes ~#TVm 1't3ymffnd aff'i'l er; airport Land Use Commission (-C/CA ) ~ Ctra irk d~ated~~ December 7, 1993}. It is important~to note the Cvmmissiuri's ac ion Has based on its evaluation of the "Directed Growth Alternative" Lhat was identified as the "Area Plan" in the May/August 1993 document. The Commission was not asked to consider, nor did it take action on any of the other alterrrat±ive land use plans that were included in the May/August 1993 document. The Commission's determination of consistency Nith the AlrporL L~ar1d Use Plan was based on the content of the 1993 version~of the Area Plan, r}egarding the two primary airport/]and use compatibility issues addressed in iyhe Airport Land Use Plan: aircraft noise impacts and the height of slr~uct~yr-es. The Commission noted the Area Plan contained specific noise policies3 for hotel and office/retail land uses that exceed the relevant land use compatibility criteria far San Francisco International Airport, as contained (rr the Airport FEE-2E-1994 09 22 FROM TO 15105407344 P.04 i Mr. Steve Carlson, Senior Planner February ZZ, 1994 Page 2 I 1 10-1 cont. The City of South Francisco should request the Airport Land Use Co~mission to take formal action on the Revised Draft East of 101 Area Plan (per;PUC Section 21676(b)). Ths City must request such action in writing. Upon receipt of the request by ALUC staff, the Commission would take action within sixty (50) .t~ve ~ Land Use Plan. The Commission also noted the 1993 Plan contained a, po zcy that addressod the height of structures in the Plan area, based on~the FAR Part 77 height limitations, for proposed structures near San Franci~~sco International Airport, that are contained in the Airport Land Use Flan. It appears a significant difference between the May/August 1993 Dr~ft East of 101 Area Plan and the current Revised Draft of the Plan is that the Revised Draft Plan does not include the alternative land use plans that were included in the May/August 1993 document. Based on ALUC Staff's review. of >jhe Revised Draft Pi an, it appears the text of the Revised Plan, regarding airE~ort/land use compatibility issues, has not changed from the 1993 version, nEyr have any new .airport./Land use...comp,atibi.l-.ty iss~ues_.been_.r.aased that may..be.. ~t..concern.... _....... to the Conirtri ssi on . ~ 10-2 In a letter to you, dated October 29, 1993, (see attached letter) ~l indicated that the C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) decided not to su~mit comments on the Draft EIR on the East of 101 Area Plan that was published in August 1993. Since the Committee decided not to submit comments o~ the previously EIR document, I will not comment on the Revised Draft SIR. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above-referenced documents. If yvu have any questions, please call me at (415) 36..-4417. Sincer y David F. Car ~stl0l.dfc Attachments ALUC Staff cc: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee {ALUC) Members Mary Yail, CJCAG Administrative Coordinator Dan Daly, Assistant County Counsel (Counsel to C/CAfi) EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES )UNE 1994 LETTER 10: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, David F. Carbone, ALUC Staff, February 22, 1994. 10-1: Comment noted. This comment acknowledges that the Airport Land Use Commission unanimously determined that the Directed Growth Alternative of the East of 101 Area Plan is consistent with the provisions in the Airport Land Use Plan related to San Francisco International Airport. The determination was based on the previous Draft Plan, but the Plan has not been changed significantly since the Commission took action. 10-2: Comment noted. This comment acknowledges that the C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee has no comments on the Revised Draft EIR. 122 11 11-1 Re EAST OF 101 FROM:ISABEL SEWELL, Lithotype Co. 333 Pt San Bruno Ave. I think the EIR and Area Plan goes into full detail of impacts of different developments East of 101. I commend the planner for such investigation. I do have some questions: l.On page 59 of the Area Plan, Genentech will have 4,500 employees, maybe the largest employer in So S F. Why give them special parking variance? Will that not inflict hardship on smaller companies who are still providing space according to your zoning? It is true that Genentech does have buses that bring and take employees, and that is an ameliorating factor in traffic congestion, they also have meetings that bring in visitors and political figures, which is admittedly a worthwhile activity, but invites many cars to come into the area that has not been built to provide for group parking of outsiders. This may not be a problem now, as the entire campus is not built up, but will the roads in the area pass the State for your General Plan, if the development exceeds capacity of the road net? 11-2 2, page 105, Why should the Bay Trail not continue around Pt San Bruno? I think the BCDC permitting does not want to be prevailed upon to make exception for special companies. Already the area by the fishing Pt. has little if any parking for the public, even tho' it has a few stalls signed. 11-3 3. page 42 of the EIR In the coastal commercial area; what value is waterfront property if you allow FAR .6, same as Planned commercial? The views will be blocked. A parking garage on the Haskins property would be a degradation of prime waterfront property. 11-4 14. Can So S F get any more water from Hetch Hetchy? I thought San Francisco was not giving out any more water. 11-5 5. I do not think Oyster Pt Blvd and Grand Ave will handle the number of cars and trucks in the approved alternative. I do not see a third exit/ access in the plan, and for the number of people coming to the area, I think the two, even tho' widened will not be sufficient. In closing: The industrial area east of 101 is a big taxpayer for the city, and has many attractive features that brought developers here. In my opinion, great care must be taken to keep the high quality so this part of South San Francisco does not decline, see an exit because of access problems. Sincerely, ~ ~, , ~_ _ ~ t .. ~,--~ -t ~'.. i Rtv~I VC.J Isabe Sewell F ES 0 71994 PLANNING EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 LETTER 11: Lithotype Co., Isabel Sewell, February 7, 1994. 11-1: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 11-2: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 11-3: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 11-4: The California Water Service Company's Peninsula District supplies water to South San Francisco, San Carlos, San Mateo and the Bear Gulch area. The California Water Service District Company's Peninsula District purchases most of the water for these communities from the San Francisco Water Department. The water allocations that the San Francisco Water Department sells to the California Water Service Company comes from non-Retch Hetchy sources. The water supply analysis contained in the Draft EIR is based on the current water entitlements contained in the contract with the San Francisco Water Department which runs through the year 2009. The proposed plan does not anticipate increasing the amount of water over the current contract amount. 11-5: Traffic conditions were analyzed for both intermediate (year 2003) and buildout development levels of the Directed Growth Alternative. Under the intermediate development level, traffic impacts were identified and measures were recommended that would mitigate these impacts under Mitigation Measure CIR-Dl. With implementation of these measures the intersections in the East of 101 area, including those on Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. Under buildout development level conditions, traffic impacts were determined to be unmitigable. That is, the measures needed to mitigate the impacts would be difficult or impractical to implement. The recommended course of action is described in Policy LU-13. It calls for the City of South San Francisco to track and monitor traffic conditions in the East of 101 area and to limit development that could create unmitigable impacts. 124 ~ ~ ~ ~ /~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ji ~~ February 15, 1994 Planning Division City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: Steve Carlson Re: Revised EIR for East of 10) Area Plan Dear Steve: RECEIVED FED 1 ~ 1~1~ In accordance with your notice to Business Owners, which we received on February 1, we have had David Powers & Associates review the Revised Draft EIR for the Area Plan as it affects the property of our client, Richard Haskins. The enclosed page contains our comments for your consideration during this review period for the Draft EIR. Our comments on the Area Plan itself are forthcoming. Sincerely, l Naphtali H. Knox AICP No. 632 cc: Alicia Guerra, David Powers & Associates David Early, Brady and Associates Richard Haskins Gary Royce, Esq. Lou Poletti i } ~~, _ U Naphtali H. Knox & Associates, Inc. Urban Planning Consultants 1010 Doyle St., Suite 15, Menlo Park, CA, 94025-4515 (415) 321-7874 FAX (415) 321-7876 DRAFT EIR FOR THE EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN COMMENTS Page Revision 12.j ~ 43 Add Coastal Commercial/Light Industrial to the Mixed Categories section, as follows: • Mixed Categories. The Directed Growth Alternative and the Mazket Oriented Alternative would allow for mixtures of the Planned Industrial category with both the Planned Commercial and Coastal Commercial categories. In addition, the Directed Growth Alternatives allows for a mixture of the Light Industrial and Coastal Commercial categories. In these azeas, identified uses eeteger~ in the Coastal Commercial/Planned .Industrial, Coastal Commercial/Light Industrial, and Planned Commercial/PlannedIndustrlal would be allowed, and design guidelines would ensure that each of the Owe three combinations of use categories would be compatible. For environmental review purposes, the higher Floor Area Ratio between the two allowed categories will be used. These maximum Floor Area Ratios can be exceeded with provision of a master plan, or the addition of retail services and child care centers, as provided in Area Plan Policies LU-16, LU-23, and LU-25. j2-2 ~ 62 ~ Add the following statements between third and fourth pazagraphs: The Draft EIR contains a "worst case" analysis of the impacts resulting from the mixed categories of development in the East of 101 Area Plan. The "worst case" analysis is based upon an evaluation of the impacts resulting from a combination of Coastal Commercial/Planned Industrial uses, instead of Coastal CommerciaULight Industrial uses, where this category applies to certain designated parcels, such as the Haskins yroperty. In general, Planned Industrial generates more jobs and more traffic than the Light Industrial designation. As a result, since the impacts of the mixed categories included in the Directed Growth Alternative are based upon the Planned Industrial land use the impacts aze slightly overstated for employment growth, traffic circulation, air pollutant emissions, noise increases, and the demand for utilities and services. All references to Coastal/Industrial refer to Coastal Commercial/Planned Industrial and Coastal Commercial/Light Industrial. j2-3 .301 The last paragraph does not completely address the potential noise impacts of Light Industrial uses on open spaces facilities that include the BCDC trail and shoreline areas. For example, it may be difficult to reduce elevated noise levels experienced along shoreline trails that aze generated by outdoor activities associated with industrial uses. j2-4 1388 Revise Policy NR-7 to be consistent with NR-7 in the Area Plan, by adding the last bulleted item to the list of measures. 12-5 1470 A discussion of the provision of open space, trails, and BCDC access on shoreline properties should be added to Section lb. 12_(I 492 Revise Policy LU-17 to reflect LU-17 in the Area Plan by striking the last sentence of the policy. ~ JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 12: Napbtali H. Knox & Associates, Inc., Naphtali H. Knox, February 15, 1994. 12-1: Page 43 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 12-2: Page 62 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. However, the worst case analysis of the DEIR is not based upon an evaluation of the impacts resulting from a combination of Coastal Commercial/Planned Industrial uses, instead of Coastal Commercial/Light Industrial uses, as the commentor suggests. The worst case analysis is based upon an evaluation of the impacts resulting from the higher Floor Area Ratio between the two allowed categories. In the case of the Haskins property, the analysis of environmental impacts is based on the floor area ratio of the Coastal Commercial designation, which is 0.60. 12-3: Comment noted. Page 301 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. Anew Policy NO-4 has been added to the Area Plan to require new development to be designed so that the average noise levels nearby open space and recreational areas do not exceed a L~ of 60 dBA. 12-4: Page 388 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 12-5: Page 470 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 12-6: Page 492 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 127 FEE-22-1994 15 21 FROM h L v - ~ ~ ~ ~ F E'ts 2 c iy~4 PLANNING TO ~4 ~aca~u C3M~~l~1G~~~3 C~C~G~4C~Q February 18,1994 13-1 To: 40 Hawthorne venue Los Rhos. CA 3022 Teleahone (41 )941-6770 Mr. Steve Carlson i Senior Planner city of snt~th San Francisco ' 40o Grand Avenue south San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Carlson: This will amplify my remarks at the public hear~'ng last night on the proposed East of 101 Area Plan concerning provision for the air freight forwarding businesses in South Sap Francisco. Companies in this business occupy our two build"nqs at 401 and 415 East Grand Avenue. There are others located long East Grand Avenue and within the Cc&F Park to the north. All told, there are over 140 freight forwarder in South sap Francisco (source: Pacific Bell Northern Califor is Business to Business SMART Yellow Pages). Please see the att hed list. Clearly, this is an important business activity for uth San Francisco as a result of the proximity to SFO, whit-h Mans on expanding its international facilities and activity. My concern is that msny of these businesses ark Located within the proposed "Planned Industrial District" which as currently worded, allows only "distributing facilities utilising light delivery ducks." Many of the trucks making deliveries or pick-ups from these companies are typical over-the-rciad semis. f Therefore iC is not clear whether this imports 1t indt_tctry to South San Francisco is allowed under the proposed wording of allowed uses in a Planned Industrial District. My request is that the wording be modified to c include freight operations related to the airport. l possibility would be to move the dividing line betweE industrial and Planned Industrial northerly to Cabot Thank you for considering this request. Yours truly, G~~'1/~ i~~/L Paul shepherd 15105407344 P.05 learly pother n Light Road. FEE-22-1994 15 21 FROM TO 15105407344 P.06 F I` I I i FREIGHT FORWARDING LISTINGS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Source: Pacific Beli Business to Business SMART Yell~w Pages AFFCO-SFO Maple A AFT International Fright System, inc. Maple Av . Admiral Air Express Victory ve. Air Cargo Handling Services Inc. Lawrenc Ave. Air Express International East Gr d Ave, Air Ocean Express Grandvi Drive Air Link U 5 A Inc. Grandvi~ w Drive Air Market Express Grandvie w Drive Air-Sea Forwarders Inc. Harbor d ay Airfreight Master Swift Av e. All Flags Forwarding Mitchell]f Ave. Allfreight International Cargc, Tnc. Cabot Ro ad Alliance Express International Lawrence Ave. Allstates Air Cargo Swift Av . Apes Maritime wattiG y Asia Trans Lines Harbor S~ a y Associated Air Freight Grandvi Drive Atlantic Pac Airline Assn Mitchell AVP. Avanti Freight Services Spruce e, Blue ~ Gold Express South M r le Ave. BMA International Forwarders Maple Av . Bohannon ~ Co. victory ve. nor-Air NYCON Freight Co. Eccles e. Cargo Concepts International Littlefi ld Ave. Cargo Handling Services Victory ve. Cargo Inc. Grandvi Drive Cargotrans International Inc. Grandvi Drive Carmichael International Service Airport lvd. Cents Corp Lawroneo Ave. China-Inter-Ocean Transport Inc. Lawrence E Ave. Circle Freight International East Gra d Ave. Commodity Forwarders Lawrence Ave. L E Coppersmith, Inc. Grandvi Drive llaher America Inc. Oyster int Dart Express Grandvi Drive Dateline Forwarding East Gra d Ave. Delton ~;xpress Allerton Ave. deugro Projects California, Inc. Oyster int Dimerco Express Corp USA Cabot R d Distribution Techniques Cabot R d FEE-22-1994 15 22 FROM FREIGHT Source: page two TO 15105407344 P.07 FORWARDING LISTINGS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Pacific Bell Business to Business SMART Yellow Pages E A S C O Eagle Freight Services Earthquake Express Eden Air Freight Elco Freight International, Inc. Endo Freight Forwarders Express Line international F A S T Fond Express Freight Force Fritz Companies Galaxy Services, Inc. Gateway Express Gateway Freigth Service Great World Express Guaranteed Air Freight & Forwarding Nankyu International Transport U S A Hellmann International Forwarding, Inc. Bassett Air Express I-Land International, Inr. Infolink Cargo Inc. Integrated Services International International Express Integsped Systems Zntertrane J ~ B Express JCW Freight Systems Co. Japan Freight Consolidators K S A America Korea Express USA Ruehne ~ Nagle, inc. LBC Mabuhay U 5 A Corp. LTH International USA Ltd. Lep Profit International Lotus International Freight J E Lowden & Cu. Linden Air Freight MO Air International Chas . Mark L~~i . Mad Dog Express Calif., Inc_ Inc. Forwarding Harbor Wray Eccles e. Grandvi Drive south Ie Ave. Grandvi Drive 5tarlite~ Grandvi Drive South M le Ave. Grandvi Drive victory ,Ave . Eccles , Mitchel Swift A Littlef Grandvi Rozzi P Harbor Littlef Linden Grandvi Grandvi Eccles . Beacon South A fiast Gr Dubuque Swift A Harbor Harbor Sylvest Grandvi East Gr• Spruce Gateway Mitchel. Myrtle , Dubuque Grandvi Grandvi victory Avenue ~nue ~Id Ave . Drive ce old Ave . ~e . r Drive Drive -e , ;port Blvd. id Ave . eve . ~, ~y ~y Road J Drive id Ave . se . 31vd . Ave. ~e . eve . a Drive a Drivc we. FEE-22-1994 15 22 FROM TO 15105407344 P.OE I I i i FREIGHT FORWARDING LISTINGS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Source: Pacific 8e11 Business to Business SMART Yellow Pages page three j Marina oeoan Air International Dubuque eve. Market Pioneer International Corp. Grandvie. Drive Mega Trans Corporation Littlefi ld Ave. Mid-America Overseas inc. Eccles A e. Midas Express Iac. Linden A e. Mighal International Inc. Cabot Ro d G Nf l~ti.ller S Co . International Forbes Hod . Morrison Express Corp II S A Carlton court NNR Air Cargo USA Inc. Grandviev~ Drive Nippon Express U S A Swift Avenue New Japan Air Service America Ltd. Lavrzence Ave, Nippon Express U S A East Grand Ave. Nissin International Transport U S A, inc. Allerton Ave. Oregon International Airfreight Co. Eccles A e. Overbruck International Pzoduca ve. Overseas Super ncpress Rozzi P1 ce P Victo ve. P11ot Air greight Eccles A Q. Pitco international Inc. Rozzi Pl~ce Poseidon Freight Forwarders Myrtle A~enue Preferred Air Freight Profit Lep Pyramid World Transport Iac. R E I Services Radix Group International, Inc. Randy International Raymond Express International Rea Cargo Interactional RigthOKay Inc. Rock-It-Carqo San Francisco Express schenkers International seair Express Iac. Security Express Senderex Cargo Ine. serv-All Air Delivery Service Sy Air Sino Am Carqo Inc. STAR International Stevens Air Transport Forwarders , Inc . Dubuque ve. Grandvie Drive Grandvie Drive Sarbor W y East Grand Ave. victory 1~ve. Harbor ~~ty Spruce Ave. victory eve. Lawrence~Ave. S,arbor W ' y yj,ttlefi~ld Aoe. Lowrie Ave. Oyster P iat Slvd. victory ve. Lawrence Ave. Swift Av~. Grandviev~ Drive Grandvie Drive Laxreace ,Ave . FEE-22-1994 15 23 FROM TO 15105407344 P.09 i i i FREIGHT FORWARDING LISTINGS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Source: Pacific Bell Business to Business SMP,RT Yelllow Pages page four I sunny Air Swift Ab e. Target Air Freight Inc. Grandvi w Drive Team Air Freight victory Ave. Technical Transportation Eccles ve. Tokyo Air Cargo America, Inc. Allerto. Ave. Tokyu World Transport Inc.-USA Grandvie w Drive Total Link International Inc. Carlton Court Triple B Forwarders Victory ve. Trust Air Cargo U S A Swift A e. Tuftrans Freight Service Victory Ave. UCM Shipping Agency Inc. Mitchell Ave. U-Freight America Inc. Corey W r iinitPd Airf.reight Services, Korea Exp. Sylvest~ Ave. Unitrans International Corp. Littlefi eld Ave. U S Express Inc. Eccles A e. wvt, Transportation Grandvi Drive Whitehall Air Transport Allerto Ave. Wice Air Freight North C nal World Freight Forwarders, Inr. Corey W y YS Gibeon Express Inc. Allertor~ Ave. Yamato Transport USA Inc . Point San Rr~~n~ JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 13: East Grand Business Center, Paul Shepherd, February 18, 1994. 13-1: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 133 FEE-1E-1994 10 46 FROM -'REAL i I - STRATEGIES, INC. A REAL ESTATE STRATEGY AND SERVICES COMPANY February 18, 4994 14-1 14-2 14-3 14-4 TO 15105407344 P.04 14 KENNETH TffiBETTS ^ P~tESIDENT DAVID 13ALDmIN . VTCEi PRESIDENT {707} 255 9331 rna~ (707) 22h S~+q.~l 1830 JEFFERSON ST'REE'>t, NaPA, CA 94559-1618 L .... ~ # of p^~as ~ pow-Rw brand fax transmittal m Fm~ '~~ ~~~ Mr. Steve Carlson ~ ~} v~d. ~~A Senior Planner °o' co. City of South San Frandsco ~non.e 77 ~ i' P.O. Box 711 °s~" South San l=randsco, CA 94083 f~"!/ ~s~'7V- ~ 3 ~ • ~~ . Dear flttr. Cason : _ - - - - -- -. _ - - -- ---~--' Tilts Tefers to your letter dat~ad January 10. 1994 wherein you enclosed a copy of tll@ Rtr Draft Environmental Impact Report and Area Plan fa the East of 101 Area Pian. The purpose o this fetter is to furnish comments on the Ret~s~sd Draft E1R. We intend to famish written comments on tttie Revised Draft of me Area Ptah prior to the jolra Hearing of the City Council and the Planning Comrrissonlwhich is scheduled for March 9, 1994. 5 I REAL Strategies, fic, is famishing fie fdlowtng comments vn the Rerisard Draft EIR on~ bei,alfi oaf HD Delaware Properties, inc. ("HD"}. HD was recently formed as a Homan Development Co. ("!-lomart") a~fiate to hold title to certain properties and HD is the successor in interest to the Homart propene located at I he t.rateway in South San Francisco. Comments are keyed to the page number of the Ei ~: e 4i - Under the Reading of "~gd CommerdaC - The sentence °However, it sh ~ id be noted that file Gateway Specmc Man currently allows a maximum FAR of 1.25" leaves the impression that tMs FAR may be changed. We request that the wad 'currently" be deleted. In addrtion, this siecuon es~t~iishes the erroneous impression that the recommended FAR of 0.50 is based on " ce buildings such as the Gateway Towers ......" As you and your eonsti~itant nave Deer advised in prev~ous letters and m comments at private meetings and at public hearings, while the cu~rent FAR at the Gaternlay Towers (Lot 1 j may be 0.60, the oriynal development plan provided for construction of more than two buildings on Lot 1 and current entitlements orl the site are and will continue to allow a F Ali of 1.25. f Is ooncervable that addiiionat development wdl oca~r on Lot t which would increase the FAR to eansidera~ly Beater than 0.60. The misleading information an FAR's on page 41 is repeated on Page 99 and on Pajges 144 and 105 and we request that revisions be made to insure accuracy of the statements. ~ f?~ezes 41 through 45 - A s4atement on Page 41 comments that 'The following land use c~ltegories are proposed for application in the EAST of 101 Area.- Alf categories are then listed in detatl Y~tth the ekceplion of the Gateway Specific Plan. The statements regading the Gateway Specific an are inadequate and we request, that in addition to those statements, a Gateway Speciftc Plan tegay be added. a Panes 47 and 48 -Under the .Planned Commercial Alternative the Gateway Specific Plan ~ eTimirtated. While we understand this Alternative is not the pre~Ferred aftsrnative, we feel it is inappro~rate fa the Gateway Spedfic Plan to be eliminated in any alternative for the reasons detailed in Mf.13o gtas W. Hall's letter of July 13, 1993 to Mr. Steve Solomon. The deletion ofi the Gateway 5peafic Plan irti this Alternative and the Market Oriented Alternative came as a complete surprise and we strongly object t+~ its exciusion_ Panes 51 and 52 -Under the iVlarket O~iented ARernative file Gateway Specific Plan is ell Ir~inated. FEE-1E-1994 10 45 FROM TO 15105407344 P.02 Mr. Steve Carlson Febn~ary t f3, 19Ad ; Page Two i Rlease refor to rnmment nn Paces 47 and 4$. ~ I 14-5 Pages 55 and 56 -Under the No Project Ahemative, statement is made that the Gateway pecific Plan applios only in two alternatives. This shatpment should be revised to state that the Gatewa Spedfic Plan would apply in all alternafives. Also under this Alternative a FAR of 2.0 is utilized which is gr ssty excessive based on the Gateway Specific Plan FAR of 1.25, current construcl~on constrain as wel( as an anticipated oppasi0on by the city based on ~axrPnt zcming and design review guidelines aid ordinances. Table S, on Page 56 should be modfied by repladng "Gateway' with Gateway Specific PIal4. 14-( P3ae Sf; -Under " D. 2003 }nt~srmedate Development of Ah~xrsativps ° statement is ma "T~hts terryear horizon ailavs far relatively accurate projection of probable development under expected t arket concilions, whitfi in turn allows for calculation of traffic and fiscal impacts' We would De ir~erested in being advised the definition of a "rolatSvoly accurate' projoctifln_ f 14-7 Page 57 -Under "t . Intermediate Development Cala~tations,' statement is made "Fa thi; analysis, uses were Qewmed to have the following ranking: office was assumed to b4 most dPSirRMp, fnl~red by flax, hate{, retail and resadential." We are nut dear as to what is the consultant's definition of "fleas.' Does it include biotech? Also, we question the ranking of retail below hotel based on the inquiriesjvve are current receiving and the need for retail services was discussed in the Draft Aroa Plan. ~~. 14-8 (Page 5B - We note in Table 9 tlfat under the Distilled Growth Alternative column, the Ge ~ tecFt Master Plan square footage is Wort included In the total square footago. is this by design or in arro 14-9 P~9~~ -Under the fieading " (1) Gateway Specific Plan," statement is made "The site's ~wners are ccnrently trying to seH vac8nt parcels in the Area ,and buyers may batnterested in projects not foreseen under the Specific Plan." We are not aware of any proposals that are not foreseen under tie Gateway Specific Pian, In addition, in so far as HD's awnerxhip is concerned, HD is not proposing otf pursuing any projects that are not fosesren by the Gateway S.pcdfic Plsn. I 14-10 ce 96 ' Under the heading " {4) Gaiew;3ty Spedfic Plan District" the description of the ~nfiSlemertts are not corre-~et. Under the Amended And Resisted Owner Participation /lgreement datod A gust 20, 1992, the Gateway Specific Plan District has the following entitlements: PERMII?ED DENSITIES ` i Office and office~saleslservice (includes Gateway Towers) 1, 39,Ot)0 Sq. ft. Retail (up to 24;000 Sq. Ft. of restaurant uses)"' 613,000 5q. Ft: Research and Development 48,000 Sq. Ft. Hotel ~ b26 rooms " The original retail entittetnent was 60,000 Sq. Ft. The incesse of 200,000 Sq. ~t. to accommodate a destination retail use requires a correlative reduction in the de~stty of other uses to the extent necessary to avdd a significant increase in the pcokfiou~ trip count over that which was antidpated at the time that the environmental impact re~iort for the Gateway Project was .oeroified. I he text on Page 96 also states that ii is riot expected that there would be emy intefeet in eveloping tats office and hotel uses in today s market. To the contrary, in the past year, we have ex ~ sect Mona fide inquiries regarding development of a hotel within The Gateway development. i 14-11 I ~~ -Under the heading' (2) Allowed Densities' (third parac$aph) statement is mane "The FAR of 1 i FEE-1E-1994 10 45 FROM TO 15105407344 P.03 i. 1 Mr. Steve Carlson j February #8, 1994 Page Three j 10.60 For the Planned Commercial category is based on the existing FAR's at office buildi~s sufi asthe Gateway Towers......." This statement is misleading and our comments are included and Page 41. 14-12 P~9e L4~ - Unde+' tf~e heac~n9 " t2y Glowed Der-sroes" {fiird paagaph) the Gateway Sp~dfic Plan is eliminated. As indicated m our comments on Pages 47 and 48. this provision is not accepi~able. Also the comment regarding e~osting FAR's at the Gateway Towers is misleading as previously indicated. {. 14-13 Q~,qe~ 1{34,and 105 - Under the heading "(2) Allowed densities " (third paragraph) the G~y Specific Plan is eliminated and the cofnmentregarding existng FAR's atthe Gateway Towers is mi ailing. Please refer to our comments on Pages 47, ~8, 99 and 102. i 14-14 ~9e 105 -Under the headnct 'b. L~d_l,lsg,,~omnatfb~iN' statement is made `Ht¢t den `'ty development could ocwr in the future. especially on currently vacant Farads such as Sheert~ra~ter and within the Gateway Specfic Plan area, due to inftll industrial and office development.' This statement is inaccurate in reference to the Gateway Specific Pfan area. It should be revised to stale than development within the Gateway Specific Pian area would be the same under any alternative induding 1f~e No Project Alternative as the Gateway Spedfic Plan would be a part of any attemanve. This comment i¢ in line vdth comments made on Papas 47 and 48. fn addition. the hazardous materials issue has beer] con~letely mitigated at The Gateway. i _ i 14-15 Pa~2~ - under the heading "d_ ~a~y Zone reference is made to Photo lob. tt appears that the proper reference is Photo 16B_ Also the last sentence of the second paragraph stated "A Marking area surrounds the buiidmgs covering most of the site ' We do not feet this statement is an a rate chRract9rization of the exisfmg conefrtimA nn l rat i nn whit? the Gateway Towers are local' 14-16 Page 1t;$ - unde~ the heading "4. No Project Alternative', the logo utilized in the first gaph, pertaining to development ~and4+r this Atternalive, is not Applicable, to any fxrlion of the Cal~ewey propAtty as the Gateway property is fully entitled and its full development is only dependent on ma et conditions. c 14-17 P~ae 18~ 'Reference to °Poiicy CIR -13." We feF-I that requiring the urpr or eiPV~!te~~!r a rr_rarl development in excess of 2b,000 feet to provide shvwers,(odcers, etc., is an undue burd~in on the development. The policy is also unclear regarding the number of employees which. triggeri the requirement. Do pat-tuna amploye~s (oaten utilized in retail operations} hAVa_ th? earn? imlpart as irrilrtinw employees or is the polity based on 30 full time equivalent positiians? l 14-18 Page 197 - Aefee-~ence to " Miti9aROn~„~~SUre C1R-01 ° Wo as concerned that this mea a opens up the opportunity for a development, previously approved and EIR certified, to beheld hostge to a aty- county-regional "impact which could result in the development being unfeasible from a fmanaall oconomigf standpoint. 14-19 Pa, eg_200 -Table 2i - It is noted that one of fie recommended ctcvfation improvements is the addition of a right~turn lane from eoslbovnd pycter Point t3oulevsrd to Southbound Gateway Boole d_ Is this work inGuded in the existing t3yster Point Boulevard irnprovemeni project? 4 14- 2U ~ Under the heading " f. ~~eway Site" (third paragraQh} scgtemeni is made "M~tvsiats left on site were covered with one foot of clean compacted fill." This sentence should be revised rto s'tat+e that "Materials left on site were covered vWith a one foot day cap.' ~ 14-21 ~ Pages 358 and 351 - Under the heading. " (4} Seasonal Wetiands." refere~noe is made to~"Two other FEE-1E-1994 10 44 FROM TO 15105``407344 P.01 I I 1VIr.Steve CaTison rebruary- ~ 8, 1994 Page l-otx 14- 21 seasonal wctlandE (which) ocaa in the cenlrRf portion of the study erea.° According to Fi 55 these cont. areas are located on property in The Gateway. $y my letters dated August 19,1993, Sept ~mber 21, 1993 and October 13, 1993 we have requested the city to furnish data which the consultant is r -ng on to designate seasonal wetlands Wi~in The GAtsway A.nd to also identify the specific areas whit Sre impacted by the alleged seasonal wetlands. To date we have not n9ceived any information from the ~Y or the sty's consultant_ It is impossible for ns to properly address the issue of seasonal wetlands w'Rho~~t the requested data end we the~refas rsquost an extAnsian ~ the comment period far the AeHlcad Draft E{R, as it pertains to the seasonal wetlands issue, for a period of 3t1 days commerKing from the sate the requested data is famished to HD's consultant, R E A L Strategies, inc. The requested ~ ston is esserrtial in ceder to 811ow HD cauficaent time to Avaluate th? ciry~ eemsultarst's data and t0 s independent expert review and advise, if deemed necessary, to concur with or refute the s axonal v~-etlands datms made in the Ae~~sd Qraft EIR. References are also made on loge 361 to the existence of rain arret air,~rnr As Hated in ooii'~ments oR 14-22 ~~ 323 Tha Gateway .property is covered with a one foot clay cap aver sole which contaitM heavy metals. The placement of the day cap, which was part of ttte approved remediation plan, was forth purpose of creating an impervious barrier dee;agned to prevent a minimize thQ p~celation of water thr gtt the sails containing the heavy metals. The existence of podcels of water or algae could therefore ocNar as a resift of inadequate drainage due to the absence of elevation dflersnces which are mitigated at 'the time of cfavelopmer'tt of each specific site. 14-23 It should also be noted fiat to the besot of ou knowledge neifier HDlHomart nor R E A L S~atec,~es, Inc. authorized the city's consultant or any subcartsuitant, svd~ as Dames and Moore. to condu~Ct any field reconnaissance on March 7,1993 (see P1age 368) a at any other tines and we are rortcern~ei Rtxxn any trespass which may have ocaarecf which exposed >~DA-iomart to potential personal ftability 4ctaims, or other daims such as mechanics liens, and may have led to trespass bl- a2hers. We would appreec~ate receiving advice irorss the city as to whether your files or your conGUl~trrt'e files contain any incfcationlthat entry cx-ta HD's {and•was sub~sequsnt to proper authorezation being secured fio:m HOIHomart_ is-za 14-25 I - Urr~ ~e heading ° D. wort-Term Use vertx~ tang-Term produe4vity," stat~ment is mach "The .plan allows for a tr+ixture of Ught indt~sYial and commerdal uses, and itrese~rves land fipr retail, office and hotel use, which is most Ckely to occur over ttte long-term." We do not understand iht use of the word Teserve.' Alm b~sxd on our contacts with lea{ estate agents, pateMiial developers : d tags ovr~r the past 12 months, we would antidpate that there is a reasvrtat~le expectatROn shat some r'etal and hotel deve}opment could occur within The Gsdeway in the shart~term rafter than the lorx,~tsrm. i pao~9 - tlrtder the heeding "B. Contacts."we note that R E A L Sifateg{es, Inc. is Hart ~sted. In view of ire fact that R E A L Stategies, {nc_ 'has had numerous contacts with city staff rtagarcl'mg type Fast of 1'01 Area Plan and In addition has provided considerable input in writing we would like to be i udsd in this section of the report. I might also mention that we dd attempt to meet with the consultants however, he declined with tAe comment that it would be inappropriate. ~ We urge dry staff and the Planning Comrt„ssion and the City Council to gave st~wt~s con Eon to the issues presented in fits letter. R 'E A L Strategies, Irtc. is prepared and an>tfous to meet .fie City andler the ctty S conaxtttartt to discuss ou cvrxrorns in even Beater detail. We will await ar~vice from you as to whether such a meeting is appropriatie at this time. Sincerely,. ~~ David 13a1dwin EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 LETTER 14: Real Strategies, Inc., David Baldwin, February 18, 1994. 14-1: Pages 41 and 99 of the DEIR have been revised in this FEIR to address the commentor's concerns. 14-2: The East of 101 Land Use Plan does not apply to the Gateway Specific Plan area. Therefore, a description of the Gateway Specific Plan is not included among the land use categories of the Area Plan. For a description of the Gateway Specific Plan, please refer to page 72 of the EIR. 14-3: Retention of the Gateway Specific Plan is not included in the Planned Commercial and Market Oriented alternatives for comparative purposes only, and there is no implication that the City intends to adopt either alternative. An analysis of such alternatives is, however, required under CEQA. 14-4: Please see Response 14-3. 14-5: Under the No Project Alternative, development on the Gateway site is assumed to occur at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.25 since this is the existing allowed FAR and no change would occur under the No Project Alternative. As explained on page 55 of the DEIR, the FAR of 2.0 is assumed for the City's existing Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial designations, since no limits on FARs are currently in place. These assumptions are based on current regulations, including the zoning ordinance and design review guidelines. These approximations are intended to provide a "worst case" scenario. Though development is not expected to reach these levels in the near future, it would be entirely possible under the existing General Plan. Page 56, Table 8 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 14-6: Page 56 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. As used in the second paragraph on page 56, the statement that a "...ten-year horizon allows for relatively accurate projection of probable development under expected market conditions..." refers to the fact that development projections for a near- to middle-term development period (in the case of the DEIR, up to ten years) are likely to be more accurate than development 138 TUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES projections that could be prepared for a more extended period, since projections for a longer time period are more likely to be affected by unforeseen changes in real estate and other economic trends. 14-7: Page 57 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. As used in the second paragraph on page 57 of the DEIR, the term "flex" refers to the type of development that is composed of structures adaptable for a range of uses which might include offices, light industrial, research and development, and sales/ service operations. Many functions that are a part of the biotechnology industry could occupy flex space. An example of this type of space is the Gateway Business Park development, located in the East of 101 Area. 14-8: Page 58 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's correction. 14-9: Page 75 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 14-10: Page 96 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 14-11: Page 99 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 14-12: Please refer to Response 14-3. 14-13: The Gateway Specific Plan is eliminated from this discussion because the Market Oriented Alternative does not include development of the Gateway Speciflc Plan, as previously discussed in Response 14-3. Pages 104-105 of the DEIR have been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 14-14: Please refer to Response 14-3. The reference to hazardous materials is not intended to be directed specifically at the Gateway Specific Plan area. This is a general comment addressing properties throughout the East of 101 Area. 139 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 14-15: Page 126 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 14-16: The intent of the first paragraph under the heading "4. No Project Alternative" on page 168 of the DEIR was to explain that although the No Project Alternative potentially could accommodate more development than the proposed Area Plan at buildout, implementation of the Area Plan would likely create larger employment increases during the ten-year planning timeframe analyzed in the DEIR. The commentor is correct to state that entitlements for the Gateway property are in place and that its development is dependent on market conditions. However, the Area Plan is intended to make the entire East of 101 Area more competitive in the current market, by realigning land use designations with current and projected development trends and establishing a plan for physical improvements; such as roadways, infrastructure, recreation facilities and aesthetic improvements; that would make the area more attractive to new development. Although it is difficult to identify benefits for specific properties, improvements are likely to aid in development of the Gateway property, as well as the rest of the area. 14-17: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 14-18: Mitigation Measure CIR-D1 does not tie the City to a specific funding mechanism for traffic improvements, and there is no indication that the commentor's fears regarding projects being "held hostage" will occur. It will be up to further discussions between the City of South San Francisco and other local jurisdictions to consider the best and fairest method of allocating regional traffic improvement fees. This is clarified further in the revised wording of Mitigation Measure CIR-Dl in this FEIR. 14-19: The Oyster Point Boulevard interchange improvement project does not include the addition of a right-turn lane from eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to southbound Gateway Boulevard. 14-20: Page 323 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's corrections. 140 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 14-21: Contrary to the commentor's claims, the commentor has been given all available data on the potential wetlands on the Gateway property. The commentor has also received a brief memorandum from Dames and Moore, the biotics consultant for the Area Plan and EIR, outlining the results of the Dames and Moore field visit of March 7, 1993. Pages 358 and 361 of the EIR have been modified to show that the area in question are potential wetlands, and that further study would be necessary to confirm their nature. 14-22: The presence of an artificial clay cap on the Gateway property does not preclude the possibility that jurisdictional wetlands occur on the site. Wetlands need not be naturally occurring in order to qualify for protection under State and federal law. 14-23: Homan Development Company was informed of the preparation of the Area Plan at a meeting with Ms. Linda Miller on March 3, 1993. At that time, Ms. Miller indicated that Homan would cooperate with the planning effort in any way possible. The consultants assumed that this included access to the site, which is not fenced or controlled in any way. If HD/Homart intended to withhold access to the site, this was not stated, and the consultants apologize for any inconvenience. 14-24: Page 556 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 14-25: Page 569 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to reflect the commentor's concerns. 141 FEE-23-1994 16 26 FROM TO 15105407344 P.01 Genentech, inc. 4b0 Point San Bruno }3ovtev,rt~ Sc:ut~ .`x~n fr~nci;co. U ~~080 ~i990 ,4 ~ 5a zz~- ~ o00 FAX: (415) 225-b00Q February 22, 1994 Steven Carlson Senior Planner Planning Division P.O. Bvx 711 City of South of San Francisco, CA 94083 Rtt: Comments on Revised East of 101 Area Plan and Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report t Dear Steve: Thank you for giving Genentech the opportunit to review the City of South San Francisco's Revised East tf 101 Area Plan (itie "Revised Area Plan") and the Revised Ars~a Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "RDEIR"). As you knots, Genentech previously submitted comment letteis dated August 30 and Octvbei~ 12, 1993 reyardiny the Drat Area Plan and the Draft Environmental impact Report ("DEIR"). In general, our review of the Revised Area Flan anfl the RDEIR indicates that many of Gnner>Itieiai's previous comments have been considered and incorporated into t~ Revised Area Plan and RDEIR. However, a number of co ents subittittefl by Genentech have not been responded Lo by tl' e City or otherwise incorporated into the Revised Area P an or the RDEIR. Zn addition, Genentech has additional comet nts regarfling portions of the revised dvc;umant:5 tYiat were rat part of the initial Area Plan or DEIR circulated previously. Thus, this letter summari2es Genentech's current comme ts. Genentech believes that the Revised Area Plan land the RDEIR, in general, adequately analyze the potential. TB.135 Past-It'" brand fax transrnittaf memo 76~t ~ w ors ~/ 15 y--~ FEE-23-1994 16 27 FROM TO 15105407344 P.02 15-1 Steve Carlson February 22, 1994 Page 2 continues to be that the RDEIR analysis should incorpo both Genentech's present development activities and it future development plans. As We have consistently sta Genentech is particularly concerned that the RDEIR take account Genentech's Corporate Facilities Master Plan (~ "Master Plan") sad the buildout contemplated thereunde While in general we believe that the RDEIR and the Rev Area Plan adequately address these concerns, we have provided some additional suggested revisions to clarif~ specific areas, as set forth below. signif icant impacts of the various alternative scenari 5 fvr the Area Plan. In addition, Genentech continues to su port the RDEIR's conclusion that the Directed Growth Altern tive is the Preferred Alternative. One of Genentech's mainlcancerns Genentech also continues to be concerned with discussion in the Revised Area Plan and the RDEIR rega improvements to the transportation and sewage infrastr the City and funding mechanisms therefor. For inetanc Revised Area Plan policies appear to place potential 1 development due to infrastructure constraints; we thin alternatives to such limitations should be considered. addition, we would like additional information regardi infrastructure funding mechanisms and confirmation tha owners such as Genentech who have already provided sub funding contributions to the infrastructure systems wi credit for such past contributions in accordance with policies of the Revised Area Plan. We have provided s comments below regarding these concerns and we will co work with the City toward resolution of these issues. With these initial thoughts in mind, Genera the following comments on the Revised Area Plan and RD~IT: REVISED AREA_PI~I into e ing ture of certain .its on that In property antial receive ral nue to has i. Paae 12, Pian Goa_1 2.2. Plan Goal 2.2 suggests that limitations on development will be impos d to address potential iiapacts on r.oadWaya and tran3it. Ho ever, this approach is only one of several available strategies for addressing traffic impacts, and is not necessarily ,the preferred alternative if other strategies are avail3blc~. Genentech therefore suggests that Plan Goal 2.2 be rev~sed as follows: TB.135 FEE-23-1994 16 27 FROM 15-1 cont. Steve Carlson February 22, 1994 Page 3 TO 15105407344 P.03 Avoid unmitigable impacts on roadways and transit by engaging in a program of necessary City traffic improvements, and placing limits on development where necessary. This approach is also consistent with the language or ~olicy CTR-2. Z. YaQe 18, Policy LU-13. Revised Area Pla Policies LU-13 and PF-4 attempt to address the constra'nts that roadway and sewage treatment capacity may place orb future development within the city if appropriate improvements are not made; in effect, these policies allocate remaining capacity to developers on a first-c e- first-serve basis. However, if sewage treatment capacities are insufficient to meet the demand created by competing development proposals, Genentech believes that the City should allocate remaining capacity to projects which farther the City's economic development plans and fulfill the oals and policies of the General Plan and the Area Plan, ra~her than on a first-come-first-serve basis. Genentech's suggested approach is consistent Policy LU-15, among ot2lers, which encourages developme facility-wide master plans and design standards. We b other aspects of the Area Plan, such as this one of infrastructure capacity, should be handled in a manner consistent with the sort of long-term and facility-wid approach encouraged by the City in Policy LU-15; howev girst-come-21rst serve approach does not appear to enc efforts. Furthermore, facilities such as Genentech wi significant long-term presence in the City further the city's economic development goals by producing substan tax revenues and jobs for the city. Accordingly, we s that Policy LU-13 be revised as follows: The City shall track development for its impacts cn roadway and sewage treatment capacity. Before the available capacities are used, the City will re- evaluate East of 101 Area land use categories, and may limit the future development of the area to uses which further the City's economic development an fu fill the aoals and policies o~ the G.ener~l P1 n and the East of 101 ea glance., s_u_ch as facility-wide planned ith t of lieve that that is planning r, a urage such h a ial ?B_135 FEE-~3-1994 16 28 FROM TO Steve Carlson Fc~Y~ruary 22, 1994 Page 4 develo mp ent. To implc~inc~nt thie policy, the City will institute a system of tracking for roadway levels of service and sewage capacity, with reports to the City Council at least once every two years. 3. Page 24~ Policy PF-4. Consistent above, Genentech recommends that Policy PF-4 be rollows: The Cfty shall work with the City of San Bruno to ensure that the wastewater treatment plant provides for development in the East of 101 Area, and the rest of the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, to the extent possible. Necessary upgrades shall continue to be parts of the Capital Improvements Program as they are required. The City shall limit development approvals to those for which adequate sewage treatment capacity is available. ~e_City shall allocate ~e,~ainina sewaas treatment capacity to ~oiecta xhich further the City economZ~'c _development plans and ful€ill ,tie goals and policies of the General Plan ~t,a the East of 101_Ar_eaP1_an, Such as facility-wide planned development. 4. Page 24, Policy PF-5. Revisions to the ext at page 97 indicate that additional testing is necessa to determine more accurately the wastewater treatment plant capacity. Pages 180-81 note that implementation of a Flan for plant expansion "should occur immediately." Genen ech also recommends that expansion planning for improvemen s veyin immediately, with revisions as necessary in lightl of arty new information from ongoing studies. Accordingly, Policy PF-5 should be revised as follows: 11 i r The City of South San Francisco shall complete the test and analysis planned fvr summer 1993 and fiscal year 1993-1994 to determine the Wastewater Treatment j Plant capacity, and shall condttc~ ~ wdA~t~.onal teats as necessary to more 15105407344 P.04 1 Kith i em 2 revise as 18.135 FEE-23-1994 16 29 FROM TO Steve Carlson February 22, 1994 Page 5 e~,pans~o~plannina fob the wastewater T t ent Plant, a will reverse such moans as necessa~v to ~ef1 ect new inf o,~mat ' on from ongoing tuflies . 15105407344 P.05 i 4 5. Page 24. Policy PF-6. Consistent with above, Policy PF-6 should be revised as follows: A sewage treatment plant upgrade and expansion plan, including both short-te_rm and lo,,,~g-term Alant caoac~ty imti„~a-ents~ alenq with a schedule and funding program, shall be adopted by the City as soon as possible. Plant capacity expansion shall be completed prior to the development that would require expanded treatment capacity. 6. Paae 4,41 Policy FIN-2. Genentech commented previously that funding mechanisms related to specific! improvements should be clarified in the Revised Area P an or as part of Policy F~1N-'l. (See Genentech~s August 30, 993 letter on page 11.) However, Genentech's comments hav not been addressed by the Revised Area Plan or RDEIR, and Genentech continues to have the following specific qua~Gions regarding improvements: (aj What will the funding mechanisms be~ror improvements? (b} Will property owners be reimbursed ~vc contributions to cover improvement expenses when later' developers build projects that benefit from such improvements? 7. Pages 57-58s LLI-13. Same comments as item 2, above. 8. Page 67. Traffic Siq awls. Genentech has already committed to fund the first two traffic siytial on the list on page 57 of the Revised Area Plan. Because these improvements will significantly benefit other users, Genentech should receive credit for its funding v£ 5uc:1 improvements, in accordance with Plan Policy FIN-2 which provides that "[i]f property owners pay for improvemen s that will benefit properties other than their own then the City will work to insure reimbursement to those owners from other owners who benefit." ~ ?B.133 FEE-23-1994 16 29 FROM TO 15105407344 P.06 ~5-2 Steve Carlson February 22, 1994 Page 6 9. PSg~ 85, Add~tionai Tra~fi Signals. Th text indicates that each traffic signal is projected to cost $38,000. Genentech believes that this may be a typogr hica error and the correct cast per signal is significantly ighe 10. ~alge 97. Policy P -4. same comments as item 3, above. 5, above. 11. gage 98, Policy Pte. same comments as 12. Pale 167, Policy F -2. item 6, above. same comments 13. gage 9. Table 16. Table lfi of the Rev Area Plan sets forth specific implementation triggers variety of traffic improvements, based in many cases o square footage of given developments in an area, whil specific developments do contribute to the need for tr improvements in the vicinity of such development, the between a certain improvement need and a specific prof very difficult to establish. Moreover, the trigger Ie arbitrary and can be manipulated by developers, e.g., developing a size of project just below a trigger leve order to avoid contribution. By contrast, a financial contribution trigger that is more closely tied to a gi sed a ffic inkage ct is els appear in project's trip generation would be much more equitable and appropriate. This approach is also consistent with Policy FIN-2 and Plan Goal 9.1, both of which apportion the cast of improvements among a variety of potential users who ma~ henePtt from such improvements. ~ REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENT~AC't' KP;l~ORT 14. Page 20. Table i. Mitigation Measure CI -Dl in Table 1 proposes a developers impact tee for joint transportation projects. Genentech agrees that it wou~d be appropriate to develop a funding mechanism that fairly apportions the casts of area-wide transportation improvements. There is no indication from the text, however, how this fee would be fairly and equitably imposed on developers. Genentech has suggested specif c language in item 21 below to address its concerns. Th same comment applies to Policies CIR-PI and CIR-M1 in Table 2 and 3. TB-135 FEE-23-1994 16:30 FROM 15-3 Steve Carlson February 22, 1994 Page 7 TO 15105407344 P.07 15. Page 4.4j Footnote A. The footnote indic tes that maximum FAR can be exceeded with provision of a m stet plan. The footnote also indicates that, for environme tal review purposes, it is assumed that the lower standard] maximum densities will generally apply. However, for ~urposes environmental review of the pirected Growth Alternative, in Genentech's case the RDEIR has assumed a greater maximum FAR consistent with Genentech's full proposed buildout und$r its Master Plan. Accordingly, the footnote should be revi~ed as follows: These maximum Floor Area Ratios can be exceeded with prevision of a master plan, or the addition of retail services and childcare centers, as provided in Area Plan Policies ITV-16, LV-23, and LU-23. However, for environmental review purposes, it is assumed that these maximum densities will yenerally apply, dull buildout of 2.,600,000 square feet is j assumed for environmental review i ourDOSes. 15-4 16. Page 59, Second Full Paragraph. Genente~h suggests the addition of the following language at the~end of the second full paragraph to reconfirm that all potential impacts of full buildout of its Master Plan are fully ! assessed in the "intermediate development" projection:I . regarding the Master Plan's likely impacts on these alternatives are included in the text, aid therefore, the ~.ikely„i~pzsc:t~ of Ger~entech's planned additional development under its Master Plan (4.500 employees and 2.6 million square feet o~ occupied wilding s~acel are fully assessed in 11 sections of his EAR„ includ.inq traffic . infrastructu municipal ser~ic:es, etc:. 15-5 17 , page gg , police ~,U-13 . item 2, above. 15-6 Same comments as~ of 18. ~acae 102, Master Pla}~s. Policies LU-lr nd LU-16 set forth the policies of the City for the appro al of such master plans. For consistency with other portions of the RDEIR 18.135 FEE-23-1994 16 30 FROM TO Steve Carlson February 22, 1994 Page 8 (e.g. , page 59) , we suggest that tale text at tTie paragraph of page 102 be revised as follows: In addition, properties with racility- wide master plans approved by the City ids Plan Policies LU-15 and LU id would be able to develop at higher FARs, as stipulated in Policy LU-16 of the Area Plan, thereby increasing the flexibility of larger developments. Pull 15-7 19 , ~ ~aqe 179 Traffic Si naffs. Same comment as item 9, above. 15-8 20. Page I87f Shuttle Service. Genentech su Bests that the following additional language be added to the~Pinal bulleted item: • Genentech provides shuttle service to th CALTRAIN station during commute hours and to the Glen ark BART station during commute hours. +, 15-9 21. page i96, LU-i3. Same comments as item above. 15-10 22. Page 197. Mitigation Measure CIR-Di. Genentech would like to clarify that any fee institute to fund joint transportation prvj~sc;Ls would bE+ c;vnsistent with Plan Policy FIN-2. Accordingly, the paragraph directl above the text of Mitigation Measure CIR-D1 should be revised asjfollows: This impact could be mitigated through ~ establishing a developer's impact fee far ~ prv~ects which impact trafYic conditions in both the City of South San Francisco ~ and other Peninsula cities. Any impact fe_e instituted Dursuant to this ~ mitigation measure would be co sistent with Policy FIN-2. which urovides that i the Gity will work to ensure 1 reimbursement to property owners who pav_ ' for imDroveme~ts that will benefit ` Drooert~,es other than their own. j This Comment also applies to the text preceding MiLiya i~ti Measure CIR-P1 (page 205) and Mitigation Measure CIR-M~ (page 209). 15105407344 P.08 secon~ 'IB.135 FEE-23-1994 16 31 FROM is-n 15-12 15-13 Steve Carlson February 22, i994 Page 9 TO 15105407344 P.09 23. Page X99, Pitigation Measure CZR-D2. It appears that this page contains a typographical error. Mitigation Measure CIR-Dl should be Mitigation Measure CIR-D2. 24. ~qg 1.99 and Paqe 200. Table 21. These ages indicate that three specific traffic improvements wool be needed to accommodate buildout of Genentech's Master Pan by 2003 and could be eliminated from the City's traffic i provement program absent 6enentech's planned development. As in~:icated in prior correspondence (see Genentech's August 30, 1993 etter on page 12), while it is true that Genentech will contrib to traffic to these locations, it is not the cane that Genentech' development would be the sole trigger of the need for ese three improvements. Other development in the area certainly would contributQ, perhaps eignifioantly, to traffic in these~locati~rls. We therefore request that these pages and Table 21 be devised to delete any specific reference to Genentech. In addition, Genentech is concerned that the ~DEIR does not indicate its assumptions regarding the allocattion of the costs of the identified traffic improvements. lI Genentech believes that the Revised Area Plan and the RDEIR should not only define a specific cost-allocation mech nism but zhould take into account contribution3 that have already been made for traffic improvements in the area, consis ent with Policy FZN-2. For example, as noted previously G nentech has already agreed to partial or full funding of sever 1 traffic improvements in the area: Gull Road at 38 percent cos. share and traffic signals at Oyster Point/Eccles and O stet Point/Gull at 100 pareent cost share. It would be both fair and in accord with the Plan Policy if Genentech would ~eceive credit for such funding in some manner. 15-14( 25. Page 206,E Table 22. Same comments as ite~ 24, above. 15-15 Z6. PaQe 210. Table 23. Table 23 identifies improvements as needed to accommodate Genentech's boil under the Market Oriented alternative. Once again we deletion of any specific reference to Genentech, for t noted in item 24 above. 15-16 27. Page 333. Figure 51. The broad, dashed boundary line on Figure 51 of the RDEIR is identified northern edge of a fault none. However, contradictory the bottom of page 340 of the RDEIR indicates that the northeastern edge of the fault zone is at the Hillside our ut quest reasons the e.ct at cult, TB.135 FEE-23-1994 16 31 FROM TO 15105407344 P.10 i Steve Carlson February 22, 1994 1 Page 10 is_j( r~hich is actually about 2,000 feet southwest of the li a shown orl cont. Figure 51. While the stated location of the Hillsdale~Fault is relatively well established, the proposed northern bou dary line is based on very preliminary lata that has yet to L-e v rifled by on-going work of the United States Geologic Survey ("U GS"}. When further evaluations are completed for the City an• by the USGS, the setback could substantially change. To avoid confusion, Genentech suggests that Figure 51 include the trace of the Hillside Fault 2,00 feet to the southwest (mapped by M.G. Bonilla and reference at footnote 4 on page 340). We also suggest that the leg nd on Figure 51 should be clarified to describe the broad, d shed line as the preliminary northern boundary of a propose' special study area for potential faulting. The north grow should also be made more distinguishable. For clarity, we have attached Figure 51 with our suggested changes. 15-17 28• - W st er reatment Plan At pages 399-400, the RDEIR refers to required future improvements to the City's sewage system. Genentech continues to be concerned that no specific funding mechanisms or timelines are established for both shorn and long-term improvements that will allow Genentech's continuing development under its Master Plan. See our comments in item 2, above. { In addition, Genentech requests that the text be revised at pages 399-400 to provide that any improveme is will be funded consistent with Plan Policy FIN-2. The first paragraph on page 400 should also refer to the contrib tions that Genentech has already made or agreed to make to u grade the wastewater treatment system. As noted in our Augu t 30, 1993 letter at comment 11, Genentech has already spent $200,000 to upgrade Pump Station No. 8, and has agreed~to contribute $86,000 to upgrade Pump Station No. 4 and $2,000 to upgrade the xarboro-ay swage main section. Also, it calculating the need for such system upgrades and Genentech's contributions, the City used wastewater fl~w projections from Genentech's 1988 Master Plan. Instea , the City should use the lower estimate of 715,000 gallons der day contained in Geflentech's 1993 Master Plan, which i~ based vn more accurate data. This lower estimate shou d also be taken into account in determining Genentech's uture contributions for system improvements. 15-18 29. ~aae 416, Policy PF-5. Same comments as item 4, above. TB• 135 FEE-23-1994 16 32 FROM Steve Carlson February 22, 1994 Page 11 TO 15105407344 P.11 Thank you for giving Genentech the opportunity to comment on the Revised Area Plan and the RDSIR. we to k forward to your responses and to continued cooperation with the City as Genentech continues to implement its Maste~ Plan. very trul yours, P ~ ames P. Yanek Vice President of Engineering and Facilities cc: City Clerk TB.135 FEE-23-1994 16 32 FROM LEGEND . ®Ee~vck Strtis O ~ af~ Ovts Reoent ~~ Bay Mud ® FillO+~a .. itecatt ~ E= Bey Mud t~ -l MlA1AE~ ~ Net ~iC.f-+ t3 •~•~Y ~.. ~"iti ®F RQf~ A ~--F~1L~ FRUe.T IN YS$Tl(~I41\ow1S ~ ~JJ7 pna 'SE 'F~~CtuiRffE~.~'.. ~I ~~ a is ~~'` ~..~ :~ A / ~ ,/,/ ~' ~, •~ 1 ~ ,, ,, .~/ ~/ ~ j~ 5,,. ~'~' >~' -16:..i....`.~ -?", -:;~j.. .. R~ -: ,_,. ~-• '-- ~,.{ ! ~r _. _ ... ~. r" .. ~1 r ~~ ~',/ ~ ` ~~ ~\ ~. t' t t_ t •Area to the south of ttds bout~day ttsay ezpesieace ,;'%~}'~ stafat:e disglacetMS-ts dutittg -;~ eattbgsakea oat the Coyote ~.' Point ianlt xone.'!he arse to ~ ~ the north appe~s to lie outside of the Coyote PoisttJfIiIIside ~ . ~ fault wtm. (itttergretation _ ~ based on p data '~~, . • ~ , ', s c .t ~ F r•.taoa• v sflc rcov ~v ~~ , y~~ ~~~ ~. G~ ~ '~„ EAST ~F '~~~ I~ AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco TO 15105407344 P. 12 FIGURES l Area Geotogy EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ]UNE 1994 LETTER 15: Genentech, Inc., James P. Panek, Vice President of Engineering and Facilities, February 22, 1994. 15-1: The comments on the Revised Area Plan are noted. Because these are comments on the Area Plan itself, responses in this FEIR are not appropriate. 15-2: As stated in the response to Comment 6-3, CEQA does not require identification of funding mechanisms for mitigation measures suggested in an EIR. Because these are comments on the Area Plan itself, responses in this FEIR are not appropriate. 15-3: Contrary to the commentor's suggestions, the DEIR does not assume a greater maximum FAR consistent with Genentech's full proposed under its Master Plan in the three buildout scenarios. Instead, the buildout scenarios assume that the maximum densities allowed under the Plan will apply throughout the East of 101 Area. Buildout of the Genentech Master Plan was incorporated into the Intermediate Development for the Directed Growth Alternative, as described on page 58 of the DEIR and similar analysis of Intermediate Development levels of the Planned Commercial and Market Oriented Alternatives has been added in this FEIR. This additional analysis is provided as a convenience for the public and the City decision-makers in their future evaluation of the Genentech Master Plan. If the Genentech Master Plan is to be approved by the City of South San Francisco, and a correspondingly higher development intensity is to be allowed, additional environmental analysis will be performed. The additional analysis may be able to rely on the analysis in this EIR and result in a Negative Declaration. 15-4: Please see Response 15-3. 15-5: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 15-6: Page 102 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to respond to the commentor's concerns. 15-7: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 154 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 15-8: Page 187 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to respond to the commentor's concerns. 15-9: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 15-10: Pages 197, 205 and 208 of the DEIR have been revised in this FEIR to respond to the comemntor's concerns. 15-11: Page 199 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to respond to the commentor's correction. 15-12: Tables 21, 22 and 23 indicate some traffic improvements that would be necessary specifically to accommodate development of Genentech's Master Plan beyond the levels projected under intermediate development of the Area Plan. While it is true that other development in the area would also contribute to the need for these improvements, there would be no need for these improvements to accommodate expected development through 2003 under the allowed FARs in the entire East of 101 Area if the Genentech site were also developed at allowed FARs. Thus, the DEIR is correct in stating that the improvements are necessary specifically to accommodate the incremental build-out of Genentech's proposed Master Plan. 15-13: The EIR does not attempt to allocate costs for roadway improvements required under the Area Plan. This would be done later by the City as specific improvements become necessary. 15-14: See Response 15-12 15-15: See Response 15-12 15-16: The dashed line shown on Figure 51 defined the northern edge of a broad zone of deformation associated with the Coyote Point fault zone. This zone was defined on the basis of preliminary data reported by the USGS. During the summer and fall of 1993 an additional 1,000 lcm of offshore geophysical data were collected. These data confirm the presence of faults and fractures in the area immediately offshore of the study area and provide additional information regarding the location of the most active traces of faults within this zone. One of the potentially most active structures 155 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES )UNE 1994 coincides with the trend of the Hillside fault zone as mapped by Bonilla (1971). The Hillside fault as mapped by Bonilla is inferred or concealed for a distance of over four miles along the south flank of San Bruno Mountain. The fault is not well located as suggested in the comment and is most likely a broad wne of deformation associated with a Franciscan age shear wne rather than a single fault trace. The text on page 340 simply suggests that deformation observed offshore may correspond to the older shear wne that comprises the Hillside fault wne. Because the trace of the Hillside fault as mapped by Bonilla (1971) is at best inferred, and over much of its length is concealed and its location uncertain, we do not believe this trace should be used as a basis for planning. Additionally, the recent data compiled by the USGS show clear evidence of permanent ground deformation in the area immediately offshore of the study area. The most pronounced wne of deformation coincides with the broad dashed line shown on Figure 51; however, the new data show additional faults to the north of this line. Therefore, on the basis of the new data, the Preliminary Boundary has been moved approximately 2,000 feet to the north, rather than to the south as suggested by Genentech's consultant. 15-17: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 15-18: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 156 FEE-23-1994 09 30 FROM ta.. otr~ces ar Mallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen P.O. Box 10189 5000 Hopyard. Road. Suite 400 Pleasanton. California 94588.0189 Telephone 510 460 3700 FaCSimil@ 510 460 0969 Nlle No.: Reply To: t3y F'aX: 415-872-3269 r'ebruary 22, 1994 City of South San Francisco F'.U.BOX 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Steve Carlson Nickolas P. Tooliatos It a Counsel; Wm. H. Gele. Jr MiChagl E, Ky1g Subject: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: REVISED DRAFT 16-1 16-2 16-3 Honorable chair and commissioners: I am writing to you again on behalf of Sierra Point Ass (SYA'L}, the owners of the approximately 28 acre parcel northern end of the East of 101 Area Plan, which is den the Plan as the "Roll" property. I will focus this several new areas of the Revisr3ci DraLt EIR or area previous comment was made. Our previous comments remai R~-~ ~ r . F~Q2 `` ~ 31994 ~~~~~G. EIR ~ciates Two at the far ~minated in letter on where no on file. A. Land Use Designation. In a pv5itive vein the awr~ers of the "Koll" site acknowledge its redesignation as; "Planned Commercial/Planned Industrial" shown on Figure 2,I Preferred Alternative. However, Page 44 continues 1_t~ iciet~stity the site as "planned industrial" only. This oversight should be corrected. B. Lailcfi Use Compatib lity. The Revised EZR analyce5 tli~ impact of residential on the "Koll" site in the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative and notes, "Because this property is physically separated from the rest of the Bast of 10l Rica, potential incompatibilities between residences and industrial land uses would be avoided." We agree with that assessment. C. Traffic Connectian_s. For the "Directed Growth Alter ative" the EIR considers three roadway configurations: (1) traffic from Sierra Point in Brisbane being segregated from the East of 101 Area with the "Koll" site only having access through the shearwater property; (2) a roac~wdy ivetween "Koll" and Shearwater with unrestricted access betjween Sierra a Sea Jose Q!ffiCe: d0 S. Market Street. Suite 700. San Jose. California 95113.2303 Telephone d08 275 660 Facsimile 408 275 0315 TO 15105407344 P.01 16 Post-It° brand fax transmittal memo d vt v=s~'~~' :.•= m ~Yl~. ,~k~IC1 ,F.o"- Co. Co. / _ ~.. Dept. Pnolne/#~ ~' '7' 7 8.s~ Steven M. Fleisher Rpn~ld I, Rginey FEE-23-1994 09 31 FROM TO 15105407344 P.02 Revised EIR Additional Comments February 22, 1994 Page 2 16-3 cont. 16-4 Point Brisbane and the rest of East of 101; and site connected to l3ayshore Blvd, or the freeway Ly with no access between "Koll" and the rest of the Area. {3) "Koll" i "f lyover" ,ast of 101 The newly worded policy (CIR-5) doesn't demand a:~y of the alternatives but requires that improvements be comple~ed by the project sponsor at the time of development that take it Lo eac~:au.nt the traffic impacts on Brisbane and East of 101 Area. Oddly the EIR does not consifler the most obvious alt'i•tiatlve of all: no access between the "Koll" site and the rest o South San Francisco. To the casual observer, the 28 acres refe red to as "Koll" site appears to be a part or the sierra Painl p~~kcje`t that is largely in Brisbane. The natural and man-made barriers between the "Koll" site and the East of 101 Area and South Sai~ Francisco suggest other solutions. 'The potential for development in the short term without ~he roadway to Shearwater or the flyover should be analyzed. with cooperation between the Brisbane and South San Francisco the potential fire response problems mentioned elsewhere in the EIR could be surmounted. In any case, the flyover alternative leaves "Iiol. " without connection to East or 101. why not take the analy:~is a step further. D. Wetlands. At page 387 second and third full paragra h, the EIR implies that South San Francisco will be going into tte wetlands preservation business. The state and federal governmei~ts already require delineation or wetlands and protection of variou sensitive habitats. The City does not need to enter into thss already regulated thicket. The policy appears to be directed at areas of wetlands below an acre which would be considered de minimis by other ag ncies. The policy would increase the administrative activities of he city in a new area and should be examined far its cost and pote tial delay of projects. If the City's purpose is to simply state that federa and state regulations should be considered by project sponsors, i~t can do so more directly. A policy that a project sponsor will comply wit2i state and federal wetlands rules, although unnecessary, ~is at least not harmful. FEE-23-1994 09 31 FROM TO 15105407344 P.03 .. ~: ~ Revised EIR Additional Comments t'ebruary Z"L, 1994 Page 3 16-5 Previous Comments. In addition to the foregoing commentts on the revised EIR, all comments made on the EIR's previous dra:~t and not specifically mentioned in this letCc~r, are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the comments on the revised draft. Ftespectrully submitted, I HALLGRIMSON, MCNICHOLS, MCCANN AND LNDERBITZEN ~ -. HARVEY LEVINE cc:steven speno David Lazzarini Ron Rainey Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen P O Box 10189 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 400 Pleasanton. California 94588.0159 Telephone 510 460 3700 Facsimile 510 460 0969 File No. Reply To' .:~,: -- :c C '~a~:sy E Ler~ne 4aa~k K Smaanouse ~Ieven M Fie~sner Mark Mak~ew:cz Roraa t Ra:neY N~ckcias P Tooi:atos 1 ! 7' %.?unSPi :•:r*.RC,a~eJr RE(;tiVEJ ti" :~aei E Kyie SEP 21 1993 September 18,1993 PLANNING City of South San Francisco P.O.Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: DRAFT EIR COMMENTS; EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN Honorable Chair and Commissioners: This is my second written communication to you on behalf of Sierra Point Associates Two (SPA2), the owners of the approximately 27 acre parcel at the far northern end of the East of 101 Area Plan, which is denominated in the Plan as the ~~Ko11" property. This second letter will focus specifically on the "Draft Environmental Impact Report" which also includes the "Existing Conditions Report" as its setting section. There will be some overlap with my previous comments on the Plan given the City's attempt to integrate the EIR and the Plan. These letters should be read in connection with each other to get the full thrust of the comments. Attached to this document are two additional letters: Attachment 1: Letter from Charles Salter and Associates to Brady and Associates addressing the Noise portions of the Plan and EIR; and Attachment 2: Letter from TJKM, Traffic Consultants addressing the transportation impacts. They are incorporated by reference in this letter. In addition, I will cite to the El Camino Corridor Final EIR and the Housing Element of the General Plan. Both should also be included in the administrative record. San Jose Office: 40 S Marl.e! S!ree!. Su:!e 700. San Jose Cahlorn:a 95? 13-2303 _2 ` 'nonE a0g 2', 0600 Facs:r.;:ie a06 275 03? East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 2 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS: This Draft EIR is inadequate in the following significant areas: (1) The noise impact provisions are so flawed by technical errors that it leaves the EIR's conclusions and findings without evidentiary support. (2) The scope of transportation and circulation analysis is too limited to cover the obvious impacts of the Plan. (3) The housing impacts of the Plan are dismissed without any attempt to determine if there will be significant impacts from removing housing which is currently permitted in the area. In fact, the removal of housing in the preferred alternative is a significant adverse impact. (4) The impact on the jobs/housing balance of the Preferred Alternative should have been treated as a significant adverse impact, distinguishing it from the alternatives containing residential development for East of 101. (5) A mixed-use alternative should have been considered as it would have provided a feasible alternative that would be superior to the preferred alternative in its Air Quality Impacts. Likewise a mixed-use on the "Koll" site should be viewed as a feasible and appropriate mitigation measure if the preferred alternative is to be selected. (6) The alternatives to the "ban residential" alternative were constructed as "straw men', not as a real alternatives. The school impact section shows how far the city will go to make the alternatives inferior to the preferred proposal. School impacts are most likely insignificant without special mitigation. They can easily be mitigated if a proper study showed them to exist. (7) A fair reading of the report shows that the Preferred Alternative is environmentally inferior to the Commercial Emphasis alternative and certainly inferior to a mixed- use high density residential and commercial alternative that should have been used. For these reasons the City should refuse to certify the document as meeting the requirements of CEQA. East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 3 The environmental document fails in the technical and legal sense because the Draft EIR seeks to justify the conclusion of the plan rather than test its impacts; because it seeks to advocate rather than investigate. Its anti-housing bias is particularly transparent. Its desire to construct an environmental basis for its compliance with the Airport's land use demands shines through, although the SFIA/South San Francisco $10,000,000 Agreement is never mentioned. This letter is not intended to be a criticism of the planning consultants or City staff, per se. This study is not an independent plan submitted to the City by a land owner's group or a community general plan review, to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council after environmental review. Rather the structure of the planning process was tightly controlled to assure that San Francisco International Airport's (SFIA) goal of banning residential development east of 101 would be met. The process has not allowed for the independent and unbiased review that would have provided all of the decision makers, and the community, the factual basis for deciding whether to sell South San Francisco's land use authority SFIA for $10,000,000. As we have said of the Plan before, the environmental analysis is "conclusion driven". SPECIFIC COMMENTS. A. NOISE IMPACTS. Attachment A sets forth in detail the specific problems with the Noise sections of the Existing Conditions, Plan and Draft EIR. The letter contains our section by section comments on the Noise. To summarize: The Plan's noise analysis is technically flawed. It did not test for airport noise on the "Ko11" property, the only remaining site on which the current general plan and zoning permits residential development and therefore the target of the SFIA induced housing ban. Rather it used aircraft noise data recorded at "F", the top of a.hi11 3/4 of mile south and east, an obviously more noisy location. Although 217 planes were recorded, the only planes that might effect the Ko11 site, those which take off on the Visual Shoreline Departure Route (VSDR), were not recorded at all by the noise consultants, because it is so infrequently used. Failing to capture the noise of any of the planes that might East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 4 fly somewhat close to the site, the noise consultant attempts to extrapolate an instantaneous noise level using the FAA's Aircraft Noise Prediction Model, which the model was not design to do. The necessity for taking this approach is clear. The CNEL noise levels, already charted by the Airport, show that the Ko11 site is outside the 65 CNEL noise area and thus residential development is permitted under all regulations of every agency that has such limitations. Having extrapolated (incorrectly) a high single event Zeve1, EIR at Page VI-155 and 156 concludes that the outdoor noise levels on the Ko11 site exceed 60 dBA and that this is can not be mitigated and "constitutes a significant and unavoidable impact." By comparison the EIR recently used for South San Francisco's EZ Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and EIR had to deal with airport overflights more serious than those on the Ko11 the site. The Final EIR at Page 206 states "The majority of the site would be exposed to single- event noise Levels that would be considered excessive and potentially interfere with indoor activities, particularly for residential areas. As a condition of development approval/or project assistance, all project facilitated residential projects in the project area should be designed to achieve the necessary exterior to interior noise reduction to meet the single event criterion limits (i.e., 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other habitable rooms) and the City's interior Noise Standard (i . e . , CNEL-45) . This would require specific studies at the development stage for each individual project to outline the steps necessary to comply with applicable standards." The E1 Camino Corridor Summary of Impacts at DEIR Page 29 classifies Airport Noise, with the above mitigation as LS, less than significant. Outdoor noise is not even mentioned. The lack of concern in the "E1 Camino" document for mitigation of the outdoor noise environment is understandable as high density housing was being considered and was ultimately approved, not single family development's with backyards. What is hard to understand is that four months later the East of 101 Draft EIR analyzing a less impacted site, with proposed high density residential, finds the outside noise level are a significant adverse impact that can not be mitigated. The view that airport noise levels can be mitigated in the E1 Camino Corridor is apparently held by more than just the City planners, consultants, planning commission and city council. The East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 5 Airport, which has induced this entire attempt to ban housing East of 101, was not sufficiently concerned about the E1 Camino Corridor proposal to send a comment on the incompatibility of housing with the Airport use, on the treatment of noise in the EIR or on the conclusion that the airport noise would be a less than significant impact if properly mitigated. The entire airport noise discussion attempts to make a "mountain out of mole hill". The "Ko11" property is outside of the 65 CNEL; the Visual Shoreline Departure Route is used in 1% of the flights; its primary use is during certain, largely daytime weather patterns; the engineering understanding, technology, and materials exist and are easily applied to reduce inside noise levels occurring on the "Ko11" site below required noise thresholds. The E1 Camino Corridor is adjacent to the San Bruno Gap (more commonly known as the Colma Gap Departure Route), which is frequently used by Stage 2 aircraft and is at least nine times busier than the VSDR. Yet no noise impact was held to constrain housing in that plan. And the South San Francisco Housing Element in discussing General Plan Land Use Constraints on housing noted "Noise Level Incompatibility" [see pages 52-53j. It states, "Takeoffs which impose the most intense noise levels on their widest residential areas are those from Runways 28-Right and 28-Left proceeding northwestward through San Bruno Gap." Note that the Koll Site is not mentioned nor is the occasionally used VSDR Runway. The notion that there is an unmitigable noise impact outside the 65 CNEL was created solely to bolster the removal of housing from the less highly impact East of 101 Area and from the "Ko11" property which would support residential development meeting all of City, County, State and Federal noise standards. The recently adopted E1 Camino Corridor EIR and the City Housing Element indicate that the noise levels can in fact be mitigated in more seriously impacted areas. B. TRAFFIC IMPACTS. Attachment B sets forth in detail the specific problems with the Transportation and Circulation sections of the Draft EIR. PLease refer to the comments as part of the comments on this EIR. In summary, the transportation and circulation portions of the EIR are inadequate in two significant ways. First, its scope is too limited. It fails to cover the impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan on properties outside the Plan Area, the City of Brisbane and Sierra Point being the obvious examples. The EIR may not assume East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 6 that the world of concern resides solely within the boundaries of the Plan and a freeway interchange. Second the preferred alternative, the "Directed Growth Alternative" contains several specific conditions relating to the "Ko11" property: that development of the "Ko11" site requires either: (1) a roadway, partially on bridge, through the Shearwater area to Oyster Point Boulevard, or (2) an overpass ,over U.S. 101 connecting Sierra Point with Bayshore Boulevard. And further, if the former (the Shearwater access alternative) is used, that no traffic from beyond the site (i . e . Sierra Point in Brisbane) be allowed to use that access. The consultant seems to base this prohibition on its concern that the Oyster Point Interchange would have insufficient capacity to handle the traffic from Sierra Point area. Considering the significance of that constraint on the development of any uses on the "Ko11" site, a full traffic analysis justifying the condition is required. There is no such analysis. The proper analysis would have shown that significant traffic benefits would be obtained from the Shearwater access without such a condition, most notably that it would constitute a parallel arterial supporting U.S. 101. This is the very type of reliever roadway which frequently is insisted upon by Federal and State agencies to improve corridor traffic flow. It would provide East of 101 motorists an alternative northbound access to U.S. 101 via the Sierra Point Parkway interchange. Finally the EIR failed to consider the traffic benefits of high density residential near the Caltrain station, currently being considered for the Shearwater Site but in any case within walking and bicycling distance from the "Koll" site, once the Shearwater access is constructed. The EIR also failed in its promise to study each of the alternatives equally. If it had studied the Commercial Emphasis and Market Demand Alternatives it would have found that residential development would improve the traffic conditions by reducing peak hour traffic, providing East of 101 and Sierra Point workers homes without freeway commute requirements, and a reverse commute for the other residents. These would improve service levels on transportation facilities and would be a distinguishing factor between them and the Directed Growth. East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 7 C. THE REMOVAL OF HOUSING FROM THE KOLL SITE IN THE "DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE" IS A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT. Chapter 2 of the DEIR concludes that banning housing in the East of 101 Area is not a significant impact. In fact just the opposite is true: the removal of Housing from the East of 101 is a significant impact in two ways, it is inconsistent with adopted goals and policies of the general plan and it will have an adverse effect on people, in particular those who can not get housing in the low, very Iow and moderate price ranges. The South San Francisco Housing Element demonstrates just how significant the removal will be. Figure 26, of the Housing Element entitled "Land Suitable for Residential Development, Sites of one acre or larger" lists the "KoI1" site as having a potential for 300 units, one of the four most productive of housing on the list of 26 sites. The Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative assumes 1,100 units on the site. If adopted that would make it the most productive housing site on Figure 26. SPA2 have indicated that greater density is possible and desireable than in this Alternative. Figure 28 of the Housing Element is even more telling. Entitled Housing Potential by Type and AffordabilitX the chart discloses that of the 24 sites listed, only one has any "Low" and "Very Low" units designated, the "Ko11" Site. Not one of the 23 other sites have such a unit mix. While 18 very low and 12 Iow cost units may seem limited, they are the only such units. Using the East of 101 alternative density of 40/a c, those numbers jump to 66 very low and 44 low income units a significant amount of this hard to achieve housing. And as noted above the Housing Element does not highlight the "Ko11" site as being impacted by the occasionally used VSDR. Thus, the Housing Element shows that in context the "Ko11" site is an important potential contributor to housing in South San Francisco and its Loss would be significant to people needing housing. But its removal is also incompatible with the adopted goals of the document. The following Goals and Policies of Housing Element are at odds with the "Ban Housing" approach of the preferred alternative: GOAL 1. Encourage a supply of housing units to assure each resident an attractive, healthful, safe environment within a East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 8 range of designs, types, sizes and prices. POLICY 1B. Provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. Action 1Be-1 Support Private Market Construction. Quantified Goal: 1,917 units by 1995. POLICY 1C. Assure people a choice of Locations by encouraging a variety of housing units in well planned neighborhoods. GOAL 2. Continue to support the provision of housing by both the private and public sector form all income groups in the community. Policy 2A. Eliminate constraint to affordable housing. Action 2A-1 promote affordable housing. Policy 2B. Stimulate the construction of lower cost units by providing incentives and encouraging mixed use projects.... Action 2B-1 Encourage a mix of .uses in Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. GOAL 5. Protect neighborhoods and housing from natural and man-made hazards. Policy 5C. Require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport plan Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use P1 an . Policy SD. Assist owners of existing dwellings to mitigate the impact of airport noise. The final promise of the Housing Element is found on page 93. This commitment is made not just to the citizens of South San Francisco and the region, but also to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The city recognizes that there is a gap between (1) the number of units that ABAG says is South San Francisco's "fair share new construction need" (for which adequate land is available in South San Francisco) and (2) the East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 9 number of new units that are likely to be built, given past trends and the realities of the housing market. Nevertheless the Cit will strive to meet its housin objectives to the fullest extent possible within the constraints im osed b the re tonal and national economies. [Emphasis added] This recognition of the City's failure is confirmed by Figure 1 of the Housing Element which shows the track record of South San Francisco in meeting its housing goals. For moderate and above moderate housing (the bulk of the units that could be constructed by a market rate project on the "Koll" site) the City projected 1005 - 1100 units to be built between 1985 and 1990. Only 44 per cent (485 units) were actual constructed. The EIR's approach of suggesting that there is enough sites shown in the City's Zoning map for residential development, is disingenuous in light of these statistics. Even adding the E1 Camino Corridor residential does not deal with the likelihood that housing mapped will actually be built. The East of 101 Market Study provides the strongest evidence that the goals of the housing plan will not be met (See III-146) . The best and perhaps only chance that the City has to reach its housing goals is to adopt a mixed use strategy which encourages developers who are willing to build residential as a part of a mixed us project with high density residential and commercial zoning. The affordable housing discussion in the jobs/housing balance chapters provides further reason for concern. Tables 8 and 9 (page II-101) show that between 36% and 54% of those employed in the East of 101 area can not afford to own their homes in South San Francisco. (This is assumes an average income in excess of $58,000 per worker household in the East of 101 area.) The document admits that even today the average East of 101 worker can not afford a new condominium let alone a new single family house. To increase the job base with no attempt to mitigate the existing affordability problems suggests a significant adverse impact. The preferred alternative's housing ban reduces the likelihood that South San Francisco will meet its housing goals; the ban is counter to several of those cited goals, policies and actions; where the element sets standards for dealing with airport noise the "Koll" site is in compliance and it worsens the affordability of housing. Therefore it is in conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community, a significant adverse impact. East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 10 D. THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE HAS A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT DUE TO ITS JOB/HOUSING IMBALANCE. At VI-83 through VI-88 The Draft EIR concludes that in the year 2003 the jobs housing balance will shift as follows: Directed Growth (Preferred) Alternative 1.57 to 2.79 Commercial Emphasis Alternative 1.57 to 1.64 Market Demand Alternative 1.57 to 1.61 There is a clear distinction between the alternative with and the alternatives without housing. But is it significant? The DEIR says it is not, since it is the jobs/housing balance at the County or regional level that matters. This argument ignores the effects of a greater demand for new housing than the new housing supply in the County can provide over this time period. Further this argument ignores the environmental setting in which this plan is being discussed. There is a reason that BAAQMD promotes mixed-use transit oriented projects including high density housing. Such projects avoid further impacting air pollution and its basic cause: too many people using their automobiles to commute to work. The DEIR's position that the City's job/housing balance does not matter smacks of an attempt to avoid responsibility for the congestion and air pollution that follows a significant increase in the surplus jobs. On the other hand, the residential alternatives proposed, and the mixed-use alternative ignored, would have a mitigating effect on the commute based environmental impacts. Housing designed for the current and future workers of the East of 101 area would reduce the number of commuters and therefore the impact of growth on an acknowledged congested freeway and congested streets. Because it would be close to a Caltrain station it would allow the new residents who do not work east of 101 to use public transit rather than private trucks and autos. It would provide the population to support retail east of 101 that would serve workers and residents alike. By increasing the jobs/housing balance by 56%, the preferred alternative significantly impacts the East of 101 Area, the city and the region. This is clearly a significant adverse impact. Residential on the "Ko11" site whether as a part of a mixed-use alternative or one of the two residential alternatives avoids those impacts. Furthermore, the EIR's data ignores the significant employment increases that will be caused by the SFIA Master Plan expansion. E. AIR QUALITY AND THE RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE. East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 11 We have discussed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) mixed use recommendation in our previous letter extensively. Please treat those comments as comments on the EIR as well. In summary the BAAQMD proposes "Mixed Land uses, i.e. residences, workplaces and services located closely enough that private motorized transit between them would not be necessary." This approach is being used successfully around the Bay Area and around the country, yet the East 101 Plan takes the obsolete view that people's homes must be far separated from their work places. The Air Quality benefits of high density housing distinguish the residential alternatives from the preferred alternative. The EIR should recognize this environmentally positive distinction. F. FINDINGS BASED ON BAD DATA AND ANALYSIS SHOULD BE REJECTED AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES SHOULD BE ADOPTED The DEIR writers create two "alternatives" in which residential is required on the "Ko11" site and the "Koll" and Shearwater Sites, respectively. These "alternatives" do not include normal project mitigations and the EIR writers conclude there are significant impacts in a variety of areas from noise to schools to air quality. These alternatives are "straw men", constructed to simply be dismissed as having significant impacts. Nowhere is this "straw man" approach more clear than in the municipal services chapter. Impact MUNI-P3 asserts that there will be 22 7 students from the 1100 residential units on the "Ko11" site. (Page VI-189) But the EIR then admits on the next page that the district does not have student generation data for multi-family units. An accurate student generation rate is necessary to determine if there will be any impact at all and if there is whether it will be a significant and adverse. The report, using its admittedly unreliable numbers, then multiplies the maximum school fee of $2.65 per square foot times the unit yield to show that the fee is inadequate and a significant adverse impact is found. But even if there were, as the EIR guesses, a 10% shortfall between the fee and the impact, the state law allows the District to assess $.25 per square foot of commercial industrial to make up the shortfall. If more shortfall remained, as a last resort the Zaw allows the use of Me11o-Roos districts to meet an unfilled school impact. The residential alternatives could obviously have been constructed to provide full mitigation for municipal services East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 12 including schools. But that would not have satisfied the goal of being environmentally inferior to the preferred alternative. In fact a proper residential proposal can easily be derived from the recommendations of the BAAQMD, the Housing Element, and the Market Study. The type of housing not being produced currently by the private sector is high density rental; the affordable and moderate income housing needs to be filled in the Housing Element can be filled by high density rental and ownership development; because it is in a redevelopment area the "Ko11" site with Iow and very low income housing requirements can help fill those needs; such residential near a transit station is highly desireable for mitigating transportation and air pollution impacts; the type of housing that can easily deal with the noise environment on the East of 101 area is high density multifamily construction. The existing zoning would permit "Ko11" to put forth such a feasible proposal. An increased density mixed-use alternative with residential and commercial would substantially increase project feasibility. And, of course, it too would be consistent with the goal of the study to prepare the remaining undeveloped and underdeveloped Land in South San Francisco for a future as high tax base, well-developed area of the city. G. THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE. Page VI-8 identifies the Directed Growth alternative as the one with the lowest degree of impacts and therefore the environmentally superior of the alternatives considered. Its only unavoidable adverse impacts listed are on air quality and transportation due to an "F" PM peak on 101. It is said to be superior to the alternatives residential containing because it avoids the impacts associated with noise, land use and schools. The data and other evidence when properly analyzed will lead to the opposite conclusion. The Directed Growth Alternative has a significant adverse and unavoidable impact on the provision of housing and on people. It has a significant adverse and unavoidable impact on the goals of the Housing Element. It has a significant and adverse impact on the city's job/housing balance effecting transportation and air quality. On the other hand, residential alternatives Lack the impacts ascribed to them: (1) The noise analysis is so flawed the EIR can not rely on it for the conclusion that "outdoor" noise is a significant and unavoidable impact. In any event, neither East of 101 EIR Comments September 18, 1993 Page 13 the E1 Camino Corridor EIR nor the Housing Element consider outdoor noise a significant impact. (2) The school impact is based on incompetent data. Even if the impact existed, there are simple and easily used mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant. (3) The land use impact is based on the asserted "outdoor noise impact" (see Table 2, Page VI-18) which was incompetently derived. Thus the preferred alternative and the residential alternatives share the Freeway impact, but the residential alternatives provide substantial mitigation. But the preferred alternative has the unavoidable and significant Loss of housing. By contrast the residential containing alternatives, mitigate the freeway impacts through development of housing and have some beneficial air quality mitigation effects. They have no other unavoidable impacts. They are clearly the superior environmental choices. The ignored mixed-use alternative is of course the environmentally superior alternative. It does exactly what BAAQMD recommends and delivering the sales tax and property base to the City without the impacts associated with traffic and circulation. As noted in our previous letter it encourages continued growth of the bio-tech industries if mixed-use were planned for the "Ko11" site, far from the bio-tech sites. It even provides housing for the airport oriented uses, improving their ability to draw employees and reduces the airport's freeway impacts thereby. The Airport's unreasoning fixation on the "Ko1I" site without any concern about truly impacted residential proposal in the E1_Camino Corridor plan, approved a few months ago, should give everyone pause. This is not about schools or outdoor airport noise. Respectfully submitted, HALLGRIMSON, MCNICHOLS, MCCANN AND INDERBITZEN HARVE E. LEVINE h a r l e s M S a l t e r A s s o c i a t e s I n c RECEIVED SEP 2 1 1993 Consultants 20 September 1993 in Acoustics 8 AudioNisual System Design Sheila Brady 130 Sutter Street Brady & Associates San Francisco 182$ 4th Str t California 94104 ee Tel: 415 397 0442 Berkeley, CA 94710-1911 Fax: 415 397 0454 Subject: East of 101 Area Plan CSA Project No. 93-243 `~"`~ M ~°"~` ~ Dear Sheila: Mttwny P Nash, P£ David R Schwind We have reviewed the Existing Conditions Report, Chapter 9 (Noise Element of Eva Ouealer Plan) and Section 4G of the draft EIR for the subject document dated August 1993. ''°''" ° ~°~ ~ It is our considered opinion that the noise impact analysis has substantial flaws and Nan T Rosen does not provide useful information to the decision makers. III addition, the Thomas A Schindler acoustic criteria 1S misrepresented. We see no justification to conclude that there 1S Harold s Goltlberg, PE an unavoidable adverse impact if residential development occurs at the Koll Rachel V Murray, PE property. Timothy M Der ThomasJCorbett AS you may know, we published a report dealing with the acoustical issues for the Kenneth W Graven Cl di K subject project dated 17 August 1992. A copy of our report 1S included for your au a raehe convenience. This report concludes that mid-rise or high-rise residential buildings Barbera J Leary with exterior-to-interior facades rated at STC 40 will provide satisfactory noise , Michael D Toy, PE reduction both for average and single event noise. This facade construction is one Eric L Broadhurst which has been implemented on many residential projects in the San Francisco Ba Katherine M Leavy y Area and throughout the world. Karen E Decker Marion G Miles Our specific comments about your document are aS follows: Raul Wceral Mtlrew G Adams 1. Page II-164, top of page: Cynthia J Flewelling Julie A Wawick "Figure 35 shows that at an L~ or CNEL of 65, between 12 and 21 percent of Mary A McGaney the population would be expected to be highly annoyed by the noise. At an Ld „ of SS, less than 8 percent of the population would be expected to be highly annoyed by noise. " The information in Figure 35 could be considered completely erroneous for the purposes of this analysis. The studies were all done between the years 1961 and 1974. It is likely that people living in these homes were "annoyed" Sheila Brady 20 September 1993 Page 2 primarily because of the significant increase in the overall level of airport noise due to the advent of jet aircraft operations. In addition, most of the homes were probably not "soundproofed." This annoyance data may have no relevance for people living in modern housing which is designed to control noise intrusion including the type of high-density housing that would be built in the East of 101 Area. 2. Page II-164, top of page: "Studies of aircraft noise show a close correlation between annoyance and interference with speech or sleep. The FAA has concluded that if maximum instantaneous noise levels are kept below SS dBA, there will be minimal potential for sleep disturbance. " We would like to know the citation for this FAA conclusion. We are unaware that the FAA has ever made such a pronouncement. 3. Page II-167, middle of page: 'The State of California Office of Noise Control also recommends that the maximum instantaneous noise levels in bedrooms not exceed SO dBA and that maximum noise levels not exceed SS dBA in other rooms. " As far as we know, the "State Office of Noise Control" has never recommended a single event criterion. To the best of our knowledge, the 50 dBA criterion comes from Jack Swing, an engineer who previously worked for the California State Office of Noise Control. He recommended this single event noise criteria in a 1978 NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING editorial. A copy of this article is enclosed for your review. As you can see, Jack Swing never mentions that he was an employee with the California State of Noise Control. The 50 dBA maximum criterion for sleeping areas was his idea to control single event intrusion for what he states are "typically occurring single event intrusions." He also states that the single event criteria should be applied to areas where the L~ exceeds 65 dB. Nevertheless, the Koll property housing can be easily engineered to conform to Jack Swing's recommended single event standard or other reasonable single event standards. Our report recommends a single event criterion for Koll property housing. 4. Page II-176, second paragraph: "Since the Visual Shoreline Depamcre Route (YSDR) was not used during the noise measurement survey, the Federal Aviation Administration's Aircraft Noise Prediction Model (Integrated Noise Model, Version 3.10) was used to calculate the maximum instantaneous noise levels at representative locations ... " Your document states that the FAA Integrated Noise Model program was used to predict these sound levels (p. II-176). The Integrated Noise Model Sheila Brady 20 September 1993 Page 3 cannot be reliably used to predict LR,~ values because this computer program has no direct way of computing maximum noise levels and was never intended for this purpose. Results using this methodology can therefore be erroneous. Therefore, public officials should not rely on any of the estimated maximum aircraft noise levels. New FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A, "Noise Abatement Departure Profiles," approved July 22, 1993, utilizes new climb profiles which would likely yield lower predicted sound levels. In addition, any measured data derived from VSDR flights at site F measurement location would not be relevant to quantifying the acoustical environment at the Koll property since the two locations are three quarters of a mile apart. 5. Page II-177, middle of page: "It would be possible to provide the requisite noise reduction to reduce interior noise levels to SO dBA in bedrooms and SS dBA in other rooms as recommended by the State of California." As stated in Item 3, we believe that the State of California has never recommended these criteria. 6. Page II-177, middle of page: "Currently, maximum noise levels on the site reach up to 95 dBA. This would require 45 dBA of noise reduction for bedrooms and 40 dBA of noise reduction for other rooms. " Jack Swing's article specifies the use of "typically occurring" events in his recommended criteria. The single event data shown in Figure 38 represents all events measured during a 72-hour period. The highest level is 91 dBA. Clearly 91 dBA, the loudest of 217 aircraft measurements, cannot be considered to be "typically occurring." More reasonably, a "typically occurring" single event would be in the range of 78 to 80 dBA to conform with Jack Swing's recommendations. In addition, the statement about maximum noise levels on the site reaching up to 95 dBA does not apply to the Koll property since the Koll property is located 3/4 mile north and east of the Site F measurement location where the 91 dBA "worst case" value was measured. 7. Page II-178, top of the page: "However, residents in the vicinity of airports {nave complained about aircraft noise at levels of less than 65 CNEL, and the studies cited in this chapter show that some people are highly annoyed by noise at 55 dB Ldn or less. " Sheila Brady 20 September 1993 Page 4 These comments may not be relevant in light of our criticism about the use of this data cited under Item 1. Based on the Figure 35 data, however, the anticipated level of complaint based on these surveys is less than 5 percent. In homes specifically engineered to control both average and single event noise, one would expect that a substantially lower percentage of people would be annoyed and complaining about aircraft noise. Figure 36 shows that the Shoreline Departure Route, the flight path that is closest to the Koll property, has an extremely low frequency of use 1 ercent of flights). Therefore, the opportunity for people being "highly annoyed" is de minimis. 8. Page II-178, middle of the page: '7f residential development orothernoise-sensitive development occurs in the East of 101 Area, it should not be undertaken until Stage 2 aircraft are eliminated from the Airport. This would assure that maximum noise levels over the area are significantly lower than they are today, and would also significantly reduce the amount of noise attenuation that must be provided by the buildings. " This paragraph makes no sense in light of the following facts: a. The acoustic environment meets the City of South San Francisco's noise element requirements as well as all known federal, state and county criteria. b. The interior sound levels in residential buildings can be easily engineered to create an acceptable environment. c. The aircraft primarily affecting the Koll property are Shoreline Departure Route flights. These aircraft are generally newer, more powerful and quieter Stage 3 aircraft. 9. Page V-87, third paragraph, first sentence reads: 'For purposes of design, the maximum exterior instantaneous noise level generated by an aircraft flyover is assumed to be 88 dBA south of Colma Creep 87 dBA between Colma Creek and Oyster Point Boulevard and 84 dBA north of Oyster Point Boulevard. " See our comments in Item No. 4. Public officials should not rely on any of the estimated aircraft maximum noise levels stated in your report. The Integrated Noise Model cannot be reliably used to predict Ln,~ values. Sheila Brady _ 20 September 1993 Page 5 10. Page V-88, second paragraph: 'The single-event noise level criterion of SS dBA for hotel rooms is used in lieu of the State Office of Noise Control recommendation of 50 dBA because hotels are a transient use. Slightly higher noise levels are more acceptable for a transient use than for a permanent residence. " As stated in Item 3, it is our opinion that the State Office of Noise Control has never recommended a single event standard. In addition, we do not know of any justification to apply a more stringent noise criteria for permanent residences than for hotels. In fact, hotel uses may be a more sensitive land use since occupants lack the opportunity to acclimate to the noise environment. 11. Page V-88, second paragraph: ':..Also, the SS dBA maximum limit is consistent with the FAA recommended criteria for noise levels in sleeping areas. " We do not know of any FAA recommended criteria for noise levels in sleeping areas. We would appreciate the reference for this criteria. 12. Page VI-153, third paragraph: 'The highest instantaneous noise levels across the site aregenerated by aircraft flying over the site on the Vrsual Shoretine Departure Route. " It is not clear how this conclusion was reached. As noted under Item 8, the few aircraft capable of executing this early turn are generally newer, more powerful and quieter Stage 3 aircraft. Aircraft departing RW28L or R straight out need this longer runway because they are older, slow climbing, heavily laden, noisier Stage 2 aircraft. The combination of lower altitude and high noise emissions from the RW28 straight out departures may produce higher single event noise levels than from the Shoreline Departure Route aircraft departures overhead. 13. Page VI-153, bottom of the page: "Since hotel uses are transient uses, and are therefore not as sensitive to long- term noise exposure as are permanent residential uses, it is recommended that interior maximum instantaneous noise levels not exceed SS dBA as proposed by the FAA. " Our comments to this sentence are' the same as comments expressed in Item No. 10 above. Sheila Brady 20 September 1993 Page 6 14. Pages VI-155, bottom of page, and VI-156: "Outdoor noise levels exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA across the Koll property. While it would be possible through site planning to provide outdoor areas shielded from the freeway and the railroad, it would be impossible to reduce the outdoor noise generated by aircraft overflights. Since noise levels in outdoor use area could (sic) not be adequately reduced this would constitute a significant unavoidable impact. " What criteria is being used to conclude that 60 CNEL due to aircraft noise outdoors constitutes a significant unavoidable impact? This is not stated in South San Francisco's General Plan nor any other standard of which we are aware, nor is it cited in this report. Therefore, the comment, " ...this would constitute a significant unavoidable impact" is unsupported. Table 19, p. II-166 states that both residential and outdoor recreation areas are compatible with 60 CNEL aircraft noise based on an FAA reference. The FAA data shows that outdoor recreation areas are compatible with levels up to 70 dB. In conclusion, we believe and have demonstrated in our 17 August 1992 report that mid and high-rise residences can be successfully developed for the Koll property. The current Koll property aircraft noise factor is about CNEL 60 and is estimated to be reduced significantly in the future as shown on your Figure 37, p. II-173. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a significant unavoidable impact if housing is developed on this site as exterior noise levels are acceptable under exterior noise standards. You should make this point to the City. This completes our comments on the subject issue. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. r--, ~~~ '~.~~ti~, Charles M. Salter, PE President encls. - as noted CMS/esd SEI6CMS Editorial loo+~,.. +~P a'O Me ~I~ ,M~v OI ,M e~ln~f eM m~ n.tA v~y v~a.r w Ine IraONlt ti n.er l~,nnd trgnea+lnq 1 A Case for Single-E~ent Intrusion Criteria in Achieai»g Noise-Compatible Land Use In the last few years, the acoustics com- munity has made great strides towards adoption of a single composite metric of noise source emissions: the day-night sound revel IL,,,). These efforts, largely through the support of the US Environmen- tal Protection Agency, have led to rather refined transportation noise prediction models for airt:rnft operations. highways and freeways, and railroad operntions. Al- though the quantification of a source's "av- erage day" noise emission in terms of L,,, can provide a useful basis for establishing noise<ompatible land use guidelines, there is a clear need for supplements! information on the intnssive characteristics of a particu- lar noise source if the actual impact on people's lifestyles is to be recognized. This supplemental information must include identification of the maximum A-weighted levels of frequently occuring single events (that is, truck pass-bys, aircraft flyovers, train whistles, and soon) (or both day and nighttime periods because, specifically, it is the sngle~vent inttvsions that disrupt class- rooms, interfere with speech, and awaken people at night To assess the relative intrusiveness of single events, such (actors as the ambient noise environment and the nature of the proposed land use (with particular empha- sis on the degree of outdoor space utiGm- tion that is planned) should be considered. Determination of whether a given land use will be compatible with its noise environ- ment must obviously take in many factors which are not adequately described by a single L,,, value. With increasing pressure for new residential developments, adminis- trators cannot simply take a safe. conserva- tive approach and restrict residential use to areas where exposure is less than L„ 55. or 60, or 65. or in some cases, L,,, 70 dB! fn California, an additional problem with the use of L,,,, for land use convois etdsu. (Actually. California uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL, which gen- ratio ~•quais i_ ,,, - ..B) C .tiilornw law restricts revd~•ntial drveiopment around airpons above L.,,, b~ and Imposes uth.>r I~mnanons for developments adtacent to Ireeways. railroads. and other noise sources where noise inrnston exceeds L.,,, 60 The problem that arises is that from a legal standpoint. a Horse contour is considered to be a clear-cut line of demarcation perma- nently etched on a map. In some cases. interpretation of Horse contours has been tamed to the extreme of allounng building on one stile of a street and not on the other- Such interpretations fad to consider the in- herent inaccuracies to Horse prediction, and the da,ly and seasonal variations in Horse source activity. Hence, it is necessary to think of an La„ value as reflective of a band of Horse on the order of - S d6 of the nominal predicted (or monitored) value. The achievement of highly accurate Horse contours. though desirable from a legal viewpoint, does little to resolve the funda- mentalquestion: How will noise impact the lifestyles of future residents? The need for inclusion of single-event criteria in achieving noise{ompatible land use is illustrated by the following two exam- ples of noise environments of vastly differ- ing characteristics: Noise emission values 50 m from a busy freeway have been monitored at 70 L,,,,. The characteristics of the freeway noise tray be generally desmbed as a dull roar at an almost constant level of 70 d6(A) vier most of the day, although truck pass-bys occa- sionally register 75 to 80 dB(A). At night, levels typically drop 5 to 10 dB(A). Now contrast the freeway with a site 4000 m from touchdown at a military airbase. The La„ value is again in the range of 65 to 70 dB: however, in this case, there are extended periods when aircraft noise is not audible and the background level falls to 40 to 50 dB(A). When aircraft flyovers occur, they produce levels of 85 to 100 dB(A) for dura- tions of 20 to 30 seconds. These flyovers sometimes continue uninterrupted for periods of one or two hours during day or night, and then activity ceases for several hours Clearly, the noisier single-event intnt- sions in the second example will affect nearby residents more severely than in the first example. What is suggested here is that acoustical consultants and land use plan- ners recognise the significance of single- event intrusioru and require that building designs accommodate them- The foUounng dwelling interior noise level performance standards have been proposed at selected sites in California, in an effort to yield inte- rior living spaces suitable for their intended purposes. By imposing acoustic perfo~m- arxe standards such as these, the need for precise contour location may be greatly re- laxed. For any new dwelling located in areas exposed to nose emtsaon in excess of L,,, U> Irnrr.ur nolsr IivrJs in dnv habnablr rcx,m must br I~~ss than or equal to L.,,, a5 dB and maximum (typically uccurnngl single event intrusions IL~,„) inside the dwelling shall further be hmrted in the fol- lounng wily' Sleeping areas SO dB(A) - anytime Other living areas 60 dB(AI -daytime SS dB(A) - nighttime Often neglected, however. are provisions (or Horse level reduction outdoors. The common practice is to beef up outdoor-ro- indoor noise insulation in residences. thereby supposedly yielding them compara- ble urith high nose environments. Ethically. we cannot expect people to live in -'bomb shelters." There is a need, especially in single-family residential developments with small children. to provide outside living areas free from excessive noise exposure. Such a requirement would necessitate. in the case of an aircraft oven'light situation. some rather innovative architectural con- siderations. Ground level noise sources present much less of a design challenge - but one that is often overiooked nonethe- less. A periormance standard which limiu maximum noise levels in certain well- defined outdoor living areas to, say, 70 to 75 dB(A) would do much to improve the quality of Going for those affected- That a dear need for such outdoor area noise in- trusion standards exists is demonstrated by the fact that in southern California. both commetrial and military airports capon sig- nificantly greater numbers of noise com- plaints during periods of pleasant outdoor weather, particularly during the evening time period (1900 to 2200 hours). The final critical element in utilizing single vent noise levels is that such infor- mation be provided to the prospective pur- chaser in layman's taints which relate these levels to their potential impact on both in- door and outdoor activities. A prospective purchaser of a home near an airport or a freeway would then be advised in advance that noise levels would possibly interfere with speech or that sleep may be impaired. and so on. The object of this would be to allow people to make an informed deeidon regarding the significance of noise impacts upon their lifestyles and to choose resi- dences accordingly. It is time to establish the degree of acceptability of various sites m terms of specific criteria which relate to people's actvites rather than in terms of abstract composite metrics which stave to lump all factors together for the conveni- ence of lawyers, but ignore their intended purpose. JOHN W SWING; Member Editona/ Board Noise Control Engineering ~ NOISE COKTRO[ F1dGItYFER1NG I NovemA~-Dectml+n l07/ September 20, 1993 Mr. Harvey Levine Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen 5000 Hopyard Road Pleasanton, CA 94588 Re: East 101 Area Pian Draft EIR -Traffic Comments Dear Mr. Levine: We have reviewed the Transportation and Circulation section of the subject DEIR We find that the traffic section incorporates acceptable methodology and the resulting calculations appear reasonable for the limited scope that was reviewed by the consultant. However, the DEIR and the East 101 Area Plan as a whole, fail to analyze the traffic impacts of the project on adjoining communities, or even on a major portion of South San Francisco. This is particularly true for the northern edge of the plan area and the area immediately to the north in Brisbane. In addition, the scope of work does not adequately analyze the traffic impacts of the proposed alternative routes required for the "Koll" site. The DEIR describes two alternative facilities to supplement the Sierra Point interchange - a roadway, partially on bridge, through the Shearwater area to Oyster Point Boulevard. and an overpass over U.S. 101 connecting Sierra Point with Bayshore Boulevard. The DEIR fails to mention that the overpass alternative is dependent on the Terra Bay southbound hook ramps, whidh are no longer a part of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange improvement project. For the Shearwater access alternative, based on insufficient data, the Plan proposes an insupportable condition on the development of the "Koll" (Sierra Poini) property in the Plan Area: that no traffic from beyond the site (i.e. Brisbane) be allowed to use the access through the Shearwater site. The consultant seems to base this prohibition on its concern that the Oyster Point interchange would have insufficient capacity to handle the traffic from the Sierra Point area. Considering the significance of that constraint on the development of any uses of the "Koll" site, a full traffic analysis justifying the condition is required. There is no such analysis. Further the Plan fails to provide a mitigation of traffic impacts at build-out. It instead focuses on the 2003 traffic for analysis. It is not clear why this is the case. What is clear is that the document docs not give the decision maker sufficient information to judge whether, from a traffic impact perspective, the "no traffic from Brisbane" condition on development is justified or whet}~er residential development on the Koll site presents significant less severe traffic impact that other potential uses on the site. 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214, Pleasanton, California 94588.2754 • (510) 463-0611 FAX (510) X63-3690 PLEASANTON • SACRAMENTO • FRESNO • SANTA ROSA Mr. F{arvcy Lcvinc Hallbrimson, McNichols, McCann & Indcrbitrcn Paf;c 2 September 20, 1993 TJKM Transportation Consultanu As the City knows, the Koll propcries in both Brisbane and South San Francisco are served by the Sierra Point Parkway interchange. If the Koll site in South San Francisco were connected with the remainder of the East of 101 Area by access through Shearwater, the existing Sierra Point Parkway interchange would still be the primary route for northbound and southbound traffic from Sierra Point (including the Koll property in South San Francisco} because of its proximity. However, some of the southbound traffic from Sierra Point will use the Oyster Point interchange instead of taking the Sierra Point Parkway route, so long as that alternative is a superior route from a "drive time" point of view. When the Oyster Point interchange becomes congested, drivers from Sierra Point will use the quicker Sierra Point Parkway interchange. The DEIR also ignores the benefits to the East of 101 Plan Area that would be provided by additional northbound and southbound access via Shearwater to Sierra Point. For example, northbound freeway destination traffic from the East of 101 Area would use the Shearwater-Koll connection to access the northbound freeway at Sierra Point Parkway, thereby relieving congestion at Oyster Point. This conclusion is based on previous studies of Sierra Point coupled with traffic data contained in the East 101 Area Plan DEIR. If the residential development alternatives had been seriously considered in the South San Francisco portion of Sierra Point, rather than the planned employment-based uses, a DEIR traffic analysis would have shown an improved traffic condition for several reasons: In general, for a given area, residential uses tend to produce less traffic, with reduced peaking characteristics when compared with most employment based uses. 2. With a connection to the East of 101 Area, residential uses on the Koll site could provide housing for the workers provided both in the East of 101 Area and Sierra Point. In addition, because of the availability of services in these two areas and in nearby portions of South San Francisco, residential development in Sierra Point would result in less use of, and less dependence upon, the U.S. 101 freeway by employees in the study area. 3. Residential uses in Sierra Point would produce "reverse commute" traffic flows when compared with alternative employment-based development. This would improve service levels on transportation facilities. As noted above, the Shearwater-Koll connection would also enable Oyster Point motorists an alternative northbound access to U.S. 101 via the Sierra Point Parkway interchange. This roadway would constitute a parallel arterial supporting U.S. 101. This is the very type of reliever roadway which frequently is insisted upon by Federal and State agencies to improve corridor traffic flow. It seems clear that anorth-south connector is desirable and beneficial to both East of 101 and Sierra Point. Access would be expected as a matter of normal traffic planning. The proposed prohibition on traffic from Brisbane is not justified from the traffic information presented. Please let me know if you have any questions about this information. Very tnrly yours, r~,~~ t/~ 1\j/ov Chris D. Kinzel President EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 LE17'ER 16: Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen, Harvey E. Levine, February 22, 1994. 16-1: Page 44 of the DEIR has been revised in this FEIR to respond to the commentor's correction. 16-2: Comment noted. This comment concurs with the conclusions of the Draft EIR. 16-3: What Mr. Levine terms the "obvious" alternative for Koll site access is called the "no-access alternative" in this EIR. The no-access alternative, which would not provide direct access from South San Francisco to the Koll site, was not considered in the DEIR since it would hinder South San Francisco's ability to provide adequate fire and police services to the Koll site. If an alternative means of providing municipal services to the site could be developed, the no-access alternative may become a viable alternative. Unlike the roadway network assumed in the main analysis, the no-access alternative would exclude the connection between the South San Francisco Koll site and the Shearwater site. Under the no-access alternative, South San Francisco Koll site traffic would be required to use the Sierra Point interchange rather than the Oyster Point interchange. The consequences would be a marginal improvement in traffic conditions around the Oyster Point interchange and a moderate deterioration in traffic conditions at the Sierra Point interchange. The effect around Oyster Point interchange would only be marginal because the planned development on the South San Francisco Koll site would constitute only a small fraction (less than 5 percent for intermediate and buildout) of future development in the area adjacent to Oyster Point Boulevard (thus only a small fraction of the traffic would be removed). The effects at the Sierra Point interchange could be moderate because the planned development on the South San Francisco Koll site would constitute a small but somewhat larger fraction (approximately 20 percent for intermediate and 15 percent for buildout) of future development on the Koll site (Brisbane and South San Francisco Koll sites combined). Policy CIR-5 has been revised to allow subsequent traffic analysis and development of a viable access alternative at the time a discretionary land use approval is issued for the Koll/Sierra Point 182 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES site. The commentor's suggested access alternative could be considered as part of the subsequent analysis at the project approval stage. 16-4: Policy CON-2 (formerly NR-2) of the East of 101 Area Plan has been revised to state, "'The Ciry shall require that developments comply with all applicable State and federal laws and regulations regarding protection and replacement of wetlands." This revision should address the commentor's concerns. 16-5: Comments made on the previous Draft EIR by Harvey Levine of Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann and Inderbitzen are included following the current letter of February 22, 1994. Differences between the original Draft EIR and the current Revised Draft EIR are so great that it is impossible to respond to each comment individually. However, the following general issues were raised by Mr. Levine previously, and corresponding responses are given below. (1) Noise Impacts. Mr. Levine commented that the noise analysis in the August 1993 Environmental Impact Report was flawed by technical errors. The noise section was substantially revised in the January 1994 version of the EIR, paying specific attention to the comments made my Mr. Levine and his consultant, Charles M. Salter Associates. (2) Transportation & Circulation. In Mr. Levine's September 1993 letter, there is concern that the transportation and circulation analysis of the August 1993 Environmental Impact Report is too limited to cover the impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan. The revised January 1994 EIR includes additional analysis of the transportation and circulation system and potential impacts. This includes analysis of additional impacts to the circulation system outside of South San Francisco, and a separate analysis of Koll site access alternatives. (3) Housing. Mr. Levine commented that there was not an adequate analysis of housing impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan in the August 1993 Environmental Impact Report. The revised EIR includes additional analysis of housing impacts, including inclusion of Mitigation Measure POP-Dl, which requires the City to 183 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EI~NIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 amend its Housing Element to identify a methodology to replace the affordable housing currently shown on the Koll site. (4) Jobs/Housing Balance. In Mr. Levine's September 1993 letter, he stated that the impact on the jobs/housing balance of the Directed Growth Alternative should have been treated as a significant adverse impact. Though it is useful to examine the jobs/housing balance within the City of South San Francisco, the ultimate balance should be thought of as a county or an regional issue. The county scope is more appropriate because we are dealing with smaller cities and a mobile environment. Under this framework, the county-wide jobs/employed residents ratio would improve under the Directed Growth Alternative, and reach a balance sometime between 2000 and 2005. The new jobs which would be attracted to the East of 101 Area during this time period would contribute to achieving this balance, thus indicating that this alternative would have no adverse impact on the County-wide jobs/employed residents balance. (5) Mixed-Use Alternative. Mr. Levine suggested the inclusion of a mixed-use alternative for analysis in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. The January 1994 EIR looks at a full range of alternatives to the Plan that is adequate for CEQA purposes. Mixed-uses can, to a certain degree, be developed under the proposed Planned Industrial designation. Retail, personal services, and restaurants can be developed in all the land use categories, as specified in Policy LU-22. A traffic analysis of mixed-uses on the Koll site was prepared in the development of the East of 101 Area Plan. It was found that mix of residential and planned industrial uses on the Koll site is estimated to generate 565 AM peak-hour trips and 580 PM peak-hour trips. The number of AM peak-hour trips is between the number generated by the residential development in the Planned Commercial Emphasis and the Market Oriented Alternative and the number generated by the planned industrial development in the Directed Growth Alternative. The number of PM peak-hour trips is the same as the residential development in the Planned Commercial Emphasis and the Market Oriented Alternative. A residential component on the Koll site would result in significant noise impacts, in addition to significant unmitigable impacts on schools. In addition, traffic impacts related to mixed-use 184 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES development would not be significantly different from the Planned Commercial Emphasis or the Market Oriented alternative, which are 100 percent residential on the Koll site. (6) School Impacts. Mr. Levine indicated in his September 1993 letter that school impacts would not be significant, as indicated by both the August 1993 EIR and the January 1994 EIR. For the reasons discussed in both versions of the Draft EIR, school impacts would be significant and unmitigable. The numbers of new students generated could require a new elementary school because of locational and capacity constraints. However, the School District cannot financially operate a school with less than 400 students. In addition, school impact fees would not fully mitigate the school districts inability to provide school facilities or transportation services. 185 FEE-28-1994 09 24 FROM TO 15105407344 P.01 ~,~ II ._.__ ZUCKEf~ .~.. ~~~(S ~_ 17-1 ~~~ pianninc~ ~~ environmsnt --~-•~. devslopmer~t ~.~..~. rnana~ement .-.~.,.~ h4US1r1~ ~s ~~ PAUL C. Zl1CKER -__ DreSie~ant -~~. 1545 hotel circle south suite 300 ~~ sari drego, ca 921ca-3Q15 (613) 260-~GSG ~~~ fax:.. (~ 19).260.1138 February 23,1994 Steve Carlson City Planning 400 Grand Avpm:e - P.Q. Sox 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: East of 101 Area Dear Steve: R~tiLi ~~J FEB 2 ~ 1994 INNING I have:. reviewed ~auth Snn t?ranciscsz'.s n.LC~r-r+~.:.,-1 F;•.t ~.f t ne a ~~~. x~~.,_.... _~....._.... _..... ._. Dear .Steve:. . . I„hat>e,. revieyved ..South ...San..; Francisco's.. ro sed .E.ar t of I..1_ Area Plan.: nn _....,, , .P..I~. behalf of..PriceCostco: .My review of the 1'Ian focused on thir interests, and was nat intended to be a complete evaluation. With the exception of one concern, the Plan including the land use category purposed for the Price Club, appears to be satisfactory. After talking to you on the telephone, you suggested that I write a letter regarding my concern. As ~ you know, the Price Club is located in the Planned Commercial category of the East of 301 Area Plan. After reading Policy LU-Ga and Pc,iicy LU 20 of the Plan, ii is not clear what type of automobile related uses, if any, will be permitted in the Planned Commercial category. The Policies n~ad as ~follows:~ LU-6a Uses allowed in the Light Industrial category.: shall typically include light manufacturing and assembly planes, warehouses, frocking a;:id distribution centers, auto, truck and ui merit re air ... ~-~-- LU 20 Auto, truck and equipment sales, rental lots ar~d storage ,and parlang shall not be permitted in the Planned Commercial .. , Polite ...LU-Ga ~ e lnz identifies -auto repair as an appropriate use in the Planned Industrial category. The policy for Planned Com:n~ercial category {LU-4x1 does not mention of such uses. Meanwhile, Policy I,U-20 excludes automobile sales and equipment from the Planned Commercial category. The repair and servicing of cars and the selling of automobile parts and tires would appear to be an appropriate use within the Planned C~~mmercial. In fact, I believe that the existing zone already allows for such b~ssinesses. lror the purpose of clarification, perhaps language should be added t~ Policy LU-20 which would indicate #hat the policy is not intended to prohibit the servicing of cars. The policy might read as follows: ~o~t-n ` [J(dt10 Id7C lfdRSfni[Ictl fflemD !O/ f ~ ~rc~rpages . /~^] ~ -... .. __..__,.~~. ..... .. ~., ~.....~..,~.._~-:.~...-,--.r..T........ .... .. ... - .. .., ... ...__,..... .- ."~~T,!^ .o`T"~:y,~~ F_. s~t~ :'kr.~ .r.2 .i'k;+l~,, ,` .~ . -. ~. 17-1 ~I,IJ-2ri~ Auto, .-truck and .equipment sales, rental lots acid storage and cont. parking shall not be permitted in the Planned ~omrnerciaL .: This policy is .not to intend to prohibit business?s that provide for the repair and servicing of automobiles, anc'i the retail sale automotive parts and tires. Thank you for your assistance in this matfier. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~~~ Lauric Price 11~ianager, Planning Services _ _ _ _ _ __.._ .. .. I "~:-t„ '~wr~,~ ARI `'°~Twe - Ca t:e. Oept. Peons ~ P S STV ~ 7.J ~ ~ Fa a EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 LETTER 17: Zucker Systems, Laurie Price, Planning Services Manager, February 23, 1994. 17-1: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 188 FEE-2E-1994 09 25 FROM IBC 18-1 Feb~ruery 25,1994 Hormtabte City Cc~una! and Piaming t;omrnission City Of SOEtR'# Serf Frarldsao 400 t~s~d ~ines~ne South Sari Francfisc~, Cpl 9~4D80 TO 1510540744 P.02 Ra; JitfYJSED P~asf of !07 A~ ~ierr-~i~dn~ ~rop~r I.adfers and GerFt[e~nen: i~fe have revievred the re~lons made to the Land Use Eler;tent andd related chapters to the January 1934 revised draft of the Area Pren that affect ~8 prap- etty of Out client, Fficttatd Haskins. N!e have only a fee-teclmlcai and ty!~ograph- icarcomments to melee. On page 17 hand also on page ~4j of the January '1944 Revised Area Iran, Pot- icy LU-Gawas revised to feed: "Usos ailovred in thra f:Tght fr~sttial ~ Shdll typiCany include tight mancs#a+~uring and assemf~ R[anEs, war+altou5es; truclcir~ artd dis#f'il~utifln centers, eft f,rucic artd equrprr+ertt repair, pairrtirtg sale, rer~tais and BtOSa,Q@, t7ifit~S. n~un$ and t~-85te iranSter 4~Cltitles, eu~d elf uses ~rhich are described ?n the Planned lrpdustrfal land use category" In order for this lSer~tence to make complete Bonse. a comma is neer3ed after the word `pair~tlr,g ' ; On page 54, under `4. Coastal Commero~ial; the Haskins Pr'aPe~Y r,~ouid be rtrention®d In the fhitd so~+tanoe (aloes with Fuilec O'Brien?. t'3rt papa 58, In the tm~ p~raph under '~. t~f'ixed Cavtd use Categotnries," the wttegoty apptted to the Haskins Piope~tlt an the Land a,~v ~ ~g~ ~Om' rrterciaVt.ight Industrial"} should have been meritloned, bsft is noL lnsgdeadT the Paragcsph m~eritioris a `Planned CflmmerciaU~igM industrial' c~teflory= aithaugh na such category emits on the Land Ease Map. Ta correct this typoQrIcSl er- ror, the first sentence ;rt the paragraph should be revised to read: ~; Planned Gp~er+clsVPlarmed Int#tstrtel, hlar~~ S'cQ,>3~SSL Commerciaff~ght f'stti8l, artd posStal CarnrnetclaNPlanned Ir~sstria! Aliixed Use s~tegorles allow for the development of uses flartsistsr~ with ether of the twee i'ad cat~agos+ess par ?4 end 75 in the Cira~latiQn. Element, Polley qR-t t requires Ciiy to P dvvels~p s program of biGyde dn:utation rmptoverner>;s. Tt1e second?and #1•nrd Rara~raphs on pie ?'v state; 'Sign bike routes an Marine 8ouls~r8rd,f I.tRlethfd airenus. l-[aslcns Y3fay, South ~iirport Boulevard, Arlerton averwe, For6~es 88ttie- vard and NQRh A~cce~gs Road. These impra~remonts era sf~own on I~'igure 8-" i . i~iatthtsff g~ t~ & ~;at~, ttic ihben Plsrrning Cbrssv~ 1Q10 DoYic St.. Sdio li.M~b Fit CA. ~~515 {415I 3Z-1-7ST4 FAX {41A 32I 786 FEE-2E-1994 09 25 FROM TO 15105407344 P.03 February 25, t 994 18-1 H.owex~ef, ~e proposed signed biko route for Haskins W8Y is ffii shown C~Tt Ftg- I urs 8 on 18- Thank you fot the oppvnvr~ty #n comment on the Revised. Areo Pfau. Sincerefr, . ~4 Naphtaji H. Kno~c A1CP 1Vo. 83Z cc: i~icrfard HSskirES, A ~ R Equ~Rment Co., South San Francisco t3ar~- Ropve, 'Esq.. JNodena & Royce, South San Frandsoo Lflv Poie~, Pofslti Reattil, South San Frar-aeoc Jsrt~s i-io~den, F.sq., Hanson, Bridgett, ii~iar~us, Yfatros S f~djr, Sad Fraru~s~o ,7afhay lCflrien, Avis Retn a-CBr, C~arde~t CitX. l~ew Yom lint MoCerrcn, Avis Rer~Fa-oar, Csarden ititl, New 7oAc August K Strvtz snd Assoaates, Architects, Tiburon GrBSNHEIfrner, Urban Design, Barr Rs~l Aiida Guerra, t}awid Powers & Assxi~es. San .~oSee David Eatl~r. Brady at~d Assodafes, 8eriaeiey Z ~ TOTAL P.83 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES LETTER 18: Naphtali H. Knox & Associates, Naphtali H. Knox, February 25, 1994. 18-1: Comment noted. This is a comment on the Area Plan. A response in this FEIR is not appropriate. 191 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES JUNE 1994 192 Appendix A REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES A-1 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: _ REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 27 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE UNDER YEAR 2000 BASELINE CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour o. Intersection T Method' Criterion° LOS Criterion° LOS 1 Ba hore and SB 101 Off-Ram All-Wa Sto 3 2S D 9 B 2 Ai ort and Butler Si al 1 9.44 ~~~ A 9.33 fJ~O A 3 er Point and Dubu ue/NB 101 Ram Si al 1 0.49 A 9~S El! ~4 4 ter Point and Gatewa Si al 1 0.60 C 0.42 A S er Point and Eccles Si al 1 0.87 E 9.89 p79 D 6 Ai ort and Linden/SB 101 On-Ram Si al 1 9.3~ p~ B 9.34 ~?~~ H 7 Ai rt and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ram Si al 1 9.4'~ E1!s A 9.39 E1 A 8 Grand and Linden Si al 1 O.SO 1~,~ O.S4 B 9 Grand and Ai rt/NB 101 Rams Si al 1 9.68 iJ!':77 9rZ1• #1~7~ D 0 East Grand and Dubu ue Signal 1 0.29 A 9.64 ~~ B 1 East Grand and Gatewa Si al 1 0.66 C 0.60 C 2 East Grand and Forbes Si al 1 0.67 C 0.72 D 3 East Grand and Littlefield All-Wa Sto 3 29 D 13 C 4 East Grand and Grandview Sisal 1 0.38 A 0.34 A S Executive and NB 101 Off-Ram One-Wa Yield 2 3S0 B 844 A 6 Ai ort and Produce Si al 1 9.63 ~S41 ~ 9.~9 E185 D 7 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ram Two-Wa Sto 2 94 27 E 49 E 8 South Ai ort and Gatewa Si al 1 O.S3 B 0.72 D 9 South Ai ort and NB 101 Rams Signal 1 0.47 A O.S2 B 0 South Ai rt and Belle Air Si al 1 0.33 A 0.48 A 1 South Ai ort and WB 380 On-Ram Signal 1 0.32 A O.SS B 2 South Ai rt and EB 380 Off-Ram Signal 1 0.30 A 0.19 A Ba hore and Old Count Road 2000 baseline conditions are not available because the City of 4 Ba hore and Guadalu a Can on Brisbane has not supplied cumulative project data. Ba hore and Geneva er Point/ Sister Cities and Ai rt Signal 1 9.>I9 3f~ 1~ ~ 9.3~ ~'~$ B b 7 Dubu ue and Hi wa 101 Rams Si al 1 9.~3 }~€!~~ A 9.~ EJ A er Point and Gull Si al 1 0.49 A 0.70 C 9 Forbes and Gull Si al 1 9 S9 ~~~9 H ?~ 0.42 A Level of service analysis method: ~1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning, (2) 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, (3) TRB Circular 37 . ° Level of service criteria are: V/C for Method 1, reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement for Method 2, delay (in sec.) for Method 3. A-2 MARCx 1994 EAST' of 101 AREw Ptnx FnvAi. ExvIItONMENTAL IA~ACT REPORT APPENDIX Table 33 VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION BY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE Land Use Alternative/ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Level In Out Total In Out Total Directed Growth Intermediate (Year 2003) 3,140 550 3,690 1,020 2,640 3,660 ~8 448 3~A ~,~79 ~A ~s'Q~ t B ild 4~~A 3 439 ~99A 4 34 A 8~A 4 3 9 ~ 3A u ou , , t~ ~ ~, 1? ,} +.4,~~ y~ +~ Planned Commercial Emphasis Intermediate (Year 2003) 4,A3A 6A9 ?iii 4,G38 3SA s~?w 4,3~A 3,46A Buildout 9,710 2,140 11,850 4,320 10,440 14,760 Market Oriented Intermediate (Year 2003) 3,33A ~l•A 3,499 4,-53A 3,4-SA 3~8 Buildout 11,.100 3,030 14,330 3,770 11,180 14,950 A-3 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: _ REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES JUNE 1994 Table 34 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection Method' V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 2.45 F 4,4~ F ~1±t 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 A~ p~0 $ 9.39 (~~5 A 3 Omer Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Signal 1 3.~4 ~ F 4.8x3 ~3 F 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 2.50 F ~i4 F 5 Oyster Point and Eccles Signal 1 4.94 #~~!5 F 3.~ x::1#3 F 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On-Ramp Signal 1 A.63 ~ g.3g $ 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal 1 A.B-S f1.94 l~ E A.6A di6 C 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.52 B 8~-S B ~k5 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 4.A9 ~~ $ ~~.. A.~93 f E 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 ArS3 p~~ B A,>;5 p> D 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 4,84 F 4,4~ F ~1Z 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 ~ A9 ~ F A.s39 ~t~7 $ 13 East Grand and Littlefield Signalb 1 4,4~ ~2 F A.~1 ~1~3 €€ li± 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 A.>3~ ~4~ E Ar94 ~t $ 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ram Si alb 1 0.96 E 0.34 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 A.>~4 1~ 9,8~ E E19Sk E ~f9 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 A.ZS D A.>3~ E f31~ (3 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 9~3 Ei D 0.92 E 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 A.~ D A.~3 D 0.8o via 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 A.~ $ g,s}g E LI~F~ ~ QSkB 21 South Airport and WB 380 On-Ramp Signal 1 A.~4 ~~~ C A.>34 ~#8 D 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off-Ramp Signal 1 9,4A a< A 0.23 A A-4 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT _ APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection T Method' V/C LOS V/C LOS 23 Bayshore and Old County Road Signal 1 8.39 r4 A.>~3 D ~~'~ $ ~$ 24 Bayshore and Guadalupe Canyon• Signal 1 8.3~ ~ A.53 A 13! . 25 Bayshore and Geneva Signal 1 8.44 A A.~ B ~~ a~9 26 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 4x54 F Ar94 li3 ~~~ ~~I#j 27 Dubuque and Highway 101 Ramps Signal 1 ~.3A F A.>34 E 1~ a<~'9 28 Oyster Point and Gull Signal 1 x,96 ~ 1,48 F ~SfG 29 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 8,g3 ~ 8~4 ~ 1~9~ 1~ t ' Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circulcu 2I2 Planning. ° Traffic signal contra was assumed for calculation purposes. Note: All intersection calculations are based on projected 2000 Baseline Conditions, except for intersections 23, 24 and 25, which are located in Brisbane. No data regarding cumulative projects that would e€fes~ ae'.>sthese intersections was available from the City of Brisbane, so the intersection calculations are based on"Ez'isting Conditions. A-5 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A:_ REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES JUNE 1994 Table 35 HIGHWAY 101 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Segment Direction Capacity' Volume V/C LOS° Volume V/C LOS° Sierra Point to NB 8,800 s~389 1.07 F X1,489 x,38 F Oyster Point SB 8,800 ~~r59 4,33 F X49 ~ F Oyster Point to NB 8,800 ~~39 ~.4~ F 49.349 ~ F Grand €1vs~1 1#~~~€~ 1' SB 8,800 9,459 4,A~ H X3,9-18 ~.4~ F Grand to South NB 11,000 X39 4.34 F S,f 99 0.87 E Airport s~~~ 1 3: SB 8,800 1;,~A9 9.~ E ~3,-SA9 x,42 F ~t9;? South Airport to San NB 13,200 X59 1.26 F 4k599 9.~ E Bruno ~~~'3 I SB 13,200 ~BfS-SA 0.80 D ~5,-59A ~.~8 F Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. ° Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. A-6 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT _ APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 36 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection T Method' Criterion° LOS Criterion° LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp All-Way Sto 3 49A ~ F 94 ~ F 2 Ai ort and Butler Si al 1 A'4l f#~~~ A A.3`; A 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 1 1 Ram Signal 1 0.84 D 0.80 D 4 er Point and Gatewa Si al 1 0.97 E 0.72 D 5 er Point and Eccles Si al 1 1.23 F 0.99 E 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On- Ram Signal 1 A.39 (~~$ ......... ~ .... 9x58 4~ ........ 1~ ... 7 A~ rt and Miller/SB 101 Off- Signal- 1 8.~ i~r~:~ G ~ 9.~4 Q` B 8 Grand and Linden Si al 1 0.55 B 0.59 C 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Rams Signal 1 0.84 D A,84 4:85 ........ D 10 East Grand and Dubu ue Signal 1 0.40 A 0.68 C 11 East Grand and Gatewa Signal 1 0.95 E 0.75 D 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 0.82 D 0.87 E 13 East Grand and Littlefield All-Way Sto 3 4b9'~ F ~4 z F 14 East Grand and Grandview Si al 1 0.58 B 0.68 C 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp One-Way Yield 2 267 C 728 A 16 Ai rt and Produce Si al 1 0.71 D A.83 €)<84 D 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Two-Way Sto 2 ~ d '~ E 44 ~ E 18 South Ai ort and Gatewa Signal 1 0.63 C 0.80 D 19 South Ai rt and NB 101 Ram s Signal 1 0.56 B 0.57 B 20 South Ai rt and Belle Air Signal 1 0.44 A 0.66 C 21 South Airport and WB 380 On- Ram Signal 1 0.45 A 0.66 C 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off- Ram Signal 1 0.33 A 0.21 A 23 Ba hore and Old Coun Road Si al 1 0.56 A 0.66 B 24 Ba hore and Guadalu a Si al 1 0.42 A 0.41 A 25 Ba hore and Geneva Si al 1 0.41 A 0.46 A 26 Oyste~Point/Sister Cities and Signal 1 8.'~4 ?~$9 1~ E 0.60 C 27 Dubuque and Highway 101 Rams Signal 1 0.50 A A.43 ~~$ ..... I~ t4 ... 28 er Point and Gull Signal 1 0.75 D 0.90 E 29 Forbes and Gull Si al 1 0.85 D 0.61 C Level of service analysis method: ~1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning, (2) 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, (3) TRB Circular 37 . Level of service criteria are: V/C for Method 1, reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement for Developwent description in Chapter 3. (2) All intersection calculations are based on projected 2000 Baseline Conditions, except for intersections 23, 24 and 25, which are located in Brisbane. No data regarding cumulative projects that would e€fes~ ~C't these intersections was available from the City of Brisbane, so the intersection calculations are based`~on Existing Conditions. A-7 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: _ REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 37 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS JUNE 1994 Baseline (Unmitigated) Mitigated AM Peak How PM Peak How AM Peak How PM Peak How No. Intersection Type Criterion' LOS Criterion' LOS Type Criterion' LOS Criterion' LOS 1 Bayshore and SB All-Way F 94° F Signal 0.86 D A.~S C 101 off ramp Stop ........ 4 Oyster Point and Signal 0.97 E (~ D Signal 0.68 D A.7~ D Gateway ~#'~~ ~, 5 Oyster Point and Signal 1.23 F 0.99 E Signal 0.68 D A.6A 6 Eccles. ~~~ "~ 11 East Grand and Signal 0.95 E 0.75 D Signal 0.85 D 0.75 D Gateway 12 East Grand and Signal 0.82 D 0.87 E Signal 0.82 D 0.82 D Forbes 13 East Grand and All-Way ~68~ F ~-14~ F Signal 0.73 D A.~3 H i4 Littlefield Stop ~:; ~" 17 Produce and SB Two-Way ~Z E 44 E Signal A.~S G (~ D lOlOff--Ramp Stop Q ~#~~ ~ x#:83 ..::: )ia3~ast~z .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ........ ... ..................... ,,~~~~r~r:. ~ ::::::::::::. ~;fr 28 Oyster Point and Signal 0.75 D 0.90 E Signal 9.ZS D 8.g9 D Gull #~;. #~~'~1 ' The level of service analysis method depends on intersection control type. Signal based on TRB modified Circular 212 planning, using V/C. Two-way stop based on 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, using reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement. All-way stop based on TRB Circular 373, using seconds of delay. ~~<z<>>~'~'is...<:iz~~:::~.re:::trr~>:hz :::l~Z:t~#bvsl:::l?a::: ~ ~vdus~::~:::na~anm 1~I::esU ~ . ::.:::u ........:...:.....: :......................... ~........................... ..:::::.1.::::::::::::.~:::::::::::::::::P:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::.~:::::.8:...:...;.... ~at~:.v€:.:;~~c~e..::~a NOTE: Analysis includes year 2005 buildout of Genentech Master Plan, as described by the Intermediate Development section in Chapter 3. A-8 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: REVISED .CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 38 HIGHWAY 101 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Segment Direction Capacity' Volume V/C LOS° Volume V/C LOS° Sierra Point to Oyster Point NB 8,800 8,680 0.99 E 8,180 0.93 E SB 8,800 8,280 0.94 E 8,850 1.01 F Oyster Point to Grand NB 8,800 9,300 1.06 F 7,980 0.91 E SB 8,800 x,848 8AA.1;9 E ~3y,4AA ~4{~.9~ F Grand to South Airport NB 11,000 9,510 0.86 E 7,610 0.69 C SB 8>800 x,338 5;88 8.8,3 ~3'7~ D 9,898 :~ 4,83 1~#!s F South Airport to San Bruno NB 13,200 12,390 0.94 E 9,810 0.74 D SB 13,200 9,460 0.72 D 11,880 0.90 E Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. Transportation Research Board, Nghway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. NOTE: Analysis includes year 2005 buildout of Genentech Master Plan, as described by the Intermediate Development description in Chapter 3. A-9 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A:_ REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 39 KOLL SITE ACCESS ALTERNATIVES DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS JUNE 1994 Roadway Alternative 1 Roadway Alternative 2 Flyover Alternative AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Siena Point & NB 101 0.59 C 0.38 A 0.68 C 0.34 A 0.68 C 0.35 A Ram s~` P .:: Bayshore & SB 101 Off- 1.25 F 0.86 D 1.21 F 0.86 D 1.21 F 0.86 D Ramp' Oyster Point/Sister Cities 9.?4 ~ 0.60 C 8.'7~ D A.gA C A~ D 9.~8 C & Airport ~ f#Q~ ;Gi$~ t# Oyster Point & 0.84 D 0.80 D 9A4 E A'Z3 D 0.79 D 0.75 D Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Dubuque & 101 Ramps 0.50 A A.43 A 0.47 A ASS 14 0.44 A 9.3~ A ~~ ~F> ~` Oyster Point & Gateway 0.97 E 0.72 D 0.97 E 1.06 F 0.97 E 0.72 D • Unsignalized for year 2000 baseline, but assumed as signalized for comparison. NOTE: (1) Roadway Alternative 1 connects South San Francisco Koll Site to Shearwater site, but does not connect to Brisbane Koll Site. Roadway Alternative 2 connects South San Francisco Koll site to Shearwater site with connection to Brisbane Koll site. (2) Analysis includes year 2005 buildout of Genentech Master Plan, as described in the Intermediate Development description in Chapter 3. A-10 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 40 KOLL SITE ACCESS ALTERNATIVES DIRECTED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS Roadway Alternative 1 Roadway Alternative 2 Flyover Alternative AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Intersection V/C LOS V/C .LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Sierra Point & NB 101 1.09 F 0.69 B 1.42 F 0.59 C 1.28 F 0.53 B Ramps Bayshore & SB 101 Off- 2.45 F 1.17 F 2.36 F 1.14 F 2.36 F 1.14 F Ramp Oyster Point/Sister Cities & 4x59 F 8.99 ~ 4,~3 F A.98 l~ 4.533 F 8A8 1~ Airport 1'.~?~ ;tr:~~ ~ ':1k~! ~>13 ~ €t~~ :x;::13 Oyster Point & 2.54 F 1.89 F 2.46 F 1.99 F 3.~9 F 1.81 F Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Dubuque & 101 Ramps 1.20 F Ar99 1~ 1.15 F 1.49 F 1.09 F A.i~ E Oyster Point & Gateway 2.50 F 2.44 F 2.50 F 3.15 F 2.50 F 2.18 F NOTE: Roadway Altemative 1 connects South San Francisco Koll Site to Shearwater site, but does not connect to Brisbane Koll Site. Roadway Altemative 2 connects South San Francisco Koll site to Shearwater site with connection to Brisbane Koll site. A-11 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A:_ REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES JUNE 1994 Table 41 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection T Method' V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 ~ F 9.88 E ~? 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 9.~3 t#3~9 1Q ;{~ 9.39 ~? A 3 er Point and Dubu ue/NB 101 Ram Si al 1 1.71 F 1.43 F 4 er Point and Gatewa Si al 1 1.72 F 1.70 F 5 er Point and Eccles Si al 1 1.93 F 2.08 F 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On-Ramp Signal 1 9.62 ~ 9.~8 1~ 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal 1 9.~ ~s~ D 9.69 a C 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.52 B 0.55 B 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.91 E 9A~ 119 E 10 East Grand and Dubu ue Si al 1 0.45 A 0.78 D 11 East Grand and Gatewa Si al 1 1.00 E 0.91 E 12 East Grand and Forbes Si al 1 0.97 E 1.00 E 13 East Grand and Littlefield Si alb 1 1.08 F 1.01 F 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 0.72 D 0.90 E 15 Executive and NB 101 Otl:Ram Si alb 1 0.82 D 0.33 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 9.84 ~~±# 1~ .... A.B,'1 E18 D ... 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signalb 1 9.74 ~<8~ D 9.83 p<~& 1~ ... 18 South Ai ort and Gatewa Si al 1 0.73 D 0.87 E 19 South Ai rt and NB 101 Rams Signal 1 0.78 D 0.82 D 20 South Ai ort and Belle Air Signal 1 0.58 B 0.92 E 21 South Ai rt and WB 380 On-Ram Si al 1 0.63 C 0.82 D 22 South Ai ort and EB 380 Off-Ram Si al 1 0.39 A 0.23 A 23 Ba hore and Old Coun Road Si al 1 0.59 A 0.81 D 24 Ba hore and Guadalu a Can on Si al 1 0.54. A 0.53 A 25 Ba hore and Geneva Si al A 0.44 A 0.63 B 26 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 ~S ~s~tf. F 9.i>!3 ~(1:?F l~ jE? ... 27 Dubuque and Highway 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.91 E 9.l>;9 (!9?E E 28 er Point and Gull Si al 1 1.06 F 1.48 F 29 Forbes and Gull Si al 1 0.82 D 0.54 B Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 2l2 Planning. Traffic signal control was assumed for calculation purposes. NOTE: All intersection calculations are based on projected 2000 Baseline Conditions, except for Intersections 23, 24 and 25, which are located in Brisbane. No data regarding cumulative projects that would efi'asar a~tthese intersections was available from the City of Brisbane, so the intersection calculations are based on~~Existing Conditions. A-12 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT _ APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 42 HIGHWAY 101 PEAK-HdUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Segment Direction Capacity' Volume V/C LOS° Volume V/C LOS° Sierra Point to Oyster Point NB 8,800 9,310 1.06 F 10,560 1.20 F SB 8,800 10,340 1.18 F 9,940 1.13 F Oyster Point to Grand NB 8,800 11,080 1.26 F 10,200 1.16 F SB 8,800 s3,34A ~ 4,85 ~ F 44,-Z3A ~~IS 4,33 3 F Grand to South Airport NB 11,000 12,240 1.11 F .9,660 0.88 E SB 8,800 8r5AA $~8~ A.9~ ~l~~ E 44,3A9 1T~1L~ 4~.3>; ~2f E ... South Airport to San Bruno NB 13,200 15,140 1.15 F 11,650 0.88 E SB 13,200 10,540 0.80 D 14,250 1.08 F Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. Transportation Research Board, Ntghway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. A-13 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES JUNE 1994 Table 413 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection Type Method' Criterion° LOS Criterion° LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp All-Way Stop 3 438 F ~ B ~? 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 8.46 ~~ A 8.35 ~ A 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Signal 1 8.66 ~'z3 ~ ~ Aa4 QI D 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 1.88 ~~;~ F 8.83 D 5 Oyster Point and Eccles Signal 1 8.93 ~ ~? 8.86 f1~49 ~ 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On-Ramp Signal 1 8x58 p<,~;~t~.,i B 8 3~ p 14 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal 1 8.68 Q> B G 8.45 #~3 A 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.54 B 0.59 C 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 8.Z5 i~~ D 8.88 E D 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 8.34 ~ A 8.63 ~ C 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 B.~Z~ }7<$~ D B.~A Q~~ le 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 8.~4 €~$5 D 8.~ €3~{ D 13 East Grand and Littlefield All-Way Stop 3 ~~ F 3~~ l~ F 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 8.43 (~$? A 8.48 ~5y3 .4 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp One-Way Yield 2 262 C 776 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 0.71 D 8.~3 lS~4 D 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Two-Way Stop 2 ~ (# E 46 ~~ E 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 0.59 C 8.88 ~ D 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.53 B 0.60 C 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 0.37 A A.6~ ~#? B 21 South Airport and WB 380 On-Ramp Signal 1 8.a~ p8 :..... A 8.63 E~~~ .. C 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off-Ramp Signal 1 0.33 A 0.22 A 23 Bayshore and Old County Road Signal 1 0.56 A 0.64 B 24 Bayshore and Guadalupe Canyon Signal 1 0.38 A 0.41 A 25 Bayshore and Geneva Signal 1 0.41 ~ A 0.44 A 26 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 8.58 ~$~ 13 8.6.5 ~ ~ 27 Dubuque and Highway 101 Ramps Signal 1 8.4a #x:44 A 8~8 Q3:6 H 28 Oyster Point and Gull Signal 1 8 ~6 ~4 14 ~.3 8.~6 (3~:Q D E 29 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 8.34 p;3 B 8.45 ~~~ ~ ' Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning, (2) 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, (3) TRB Circular 373. b Level of service criteria are: V/C for Method 1, reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement for Method 2, delay (in sec.) for Method 3. ::>:<:::><::::<::::>::>::::::::T~$:::~?z~l~~.e~:::at~:>;t::1~..: <:~~~::tttecht~c€::t~: .. ~:~:::~~a~z~ ~Z~::ec#i~:::t~f:I~tcle:::d~~a ;: .............................................................. .....................................:........................::.~:::::::'::.::.;::;;:;.;;:.;;;;;:.;~::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.~:::::::::::::::::::: ;~ ......................................................................................................X. NOTE: (1) Analysis dees~ei-includes year 2005 buildout of Genentech Master Plan, as described by the Intermediate Development description in Chapter 3. (2) All intersection calculations are based on projected 2000 Baseline Conditions, except for Intersections 23, 24 and 25, which are located in Brisbane. No data regarding cumulative projects that would s~es~ ~eYthese intersections was available from the City of Brisbane, so the intersection calculations are based on Existing Conditions. A-14 TUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 44 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Unmitigated Mitigated AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection Type Criterion' LOS Criterion' LOS Type Criterion' LOS Criterion' LOS 1 Bayshore and SB All-Way ~!'' F ~' 1~ Signal 0.~4 D 9.63 C 101 off-ramp Stop I? 4)8~ (3 4 Oyster Point and Signal x.99 ~ 9.132 1~ Signal 9.~5 D 9.82 D Gateway ~x ~ f~~~ E 5 Oyster Point and Signal 9.93 E 9.36 D Signal 9.3~ l~ 9.69 :4 Eccles :`= 0<3 ~~.... ~ ('?*S7 ~3 13 East Grand and All-Way 6-Sb F 2~b l~ ~? Signal 9.67 C 9.32 B Littlefield Stop 17 Produce and SB 101 Two-Way 6~ E 46 E Signal 9.6~ C 9.~9 D Off-Ramp Stop ~ F :.::.;:. :. ~~ .:~ "Paiii~i~i:~€ .:;;:.;:.;:;.;::.;:.;;;;:.;>;:;:: ~:; ~ >. :.;:.:8: ~#?~ D .... CIS~l ......... E .... a: ~:<:: .~.~:::. €17~ ...... ~ .... ~" ...... ... t~1 ........ ' The level of service analysis method depends on intersection control type. Signal based on TRB modified Circular 212 planning, using V/C. Two-way stop based on 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, using reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement. All-way stop based on TRB Circular 373, using seconds of delay. :.:.>:.:; Txaff~c>~w~>:~re:~:~a~:~ugh: t to ad~ce: ~xa~sn ... est~ua~ ~l•~e~tte~. z~~~a <T .... ... NOTE: Analysis dee~~e~-includes buildout of the Genentech Master Plan, as described in the Intermediate Development description in Chapter 3. A-15 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A:_ REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES JUNE 1994 Table 45 HIGHWAY 101 FEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS PLANNED COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Segment Direction Capacity' Volume V/C LOS° Volume V/C LOS° Si P NB 8,800 8,710 0.99 E 7,810 0.89 E erra oint to Oyster Point SB 8,800 7,730 0.88 E 8,850 1.01 F NB 8,800 8,880 1.01 F 7,890 0.90 E Oyster Point to Grand SB g~800 ~~ 74~Q egg €3~;~ E 9,48 ~ }~ t F NB 11,000 9,160 0.83 D 7,660 0.70 D Grand to South Airport SB 8.800 ~,4~A €1~t~ A.84 f~8#~ D ~A 8~7 }~,~ >7Q4 ~ NB 13,200 11,860 0.90 E 9,850 0.75 D South Airport to San Bruno SB 13,200 9,610 0.73 D 11,740 0.89 E Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. Transportation Research Board, Ntghway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. NOTE: Analysis dens-newinclude; buildout of the Genentech Master Plan, as described in the Intermediate Development description in Chapter 3. A-16 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 46 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection Type Method' V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal° 1 4,6,3 ~#? F A.88 ~~:{ 1~ ~ 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 A.66 f3~{fl ~ 8.~ d:. A 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Signal 1 1.69 F 1.30 F 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 2.06 F 1.66 F 5 Oyster Point and Eccles Signal 1 2.09 F 2.11 F 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On-Ramp Signal 1 A.65 3;44 ~ #~ A.6A ~3 ~ 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal 1 A.84 0.~ D ~ A~6 H 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.53 B 0.54 B 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 1.00 E 8.~ ~ ~.~ E 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 0.52 B 0.87 E 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 1.18 F 0.98 E 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 1.17 F 1.16 F 13 East Grand and Littlefield Signal° 1 1.37 F 1.21 F 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 0.95 E 1.20 F 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp Signal° 1 0.92 E 0.33 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 A.~ ~?~5 E 8.g5 ~?~~ ~ 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal° 1 A.~S ~ .. ~ ~ A.SS ~~~ ~~' ~ ~~ 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 0.85 D 0.90 E 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.88 E 0.81 D 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 0.59 C 1.04 F 21 South Airport and WB 380 On-Ramp Signal 1 0.72 D 0.91 E 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off-Ramp Signal 1 0.46 A 0.24 A 23 Bayshore and Old County Road Signal 1 0.61 B 0.83 D 24 Bayshore and Guadalupe Canyon Signal 1 0.57 A 0.54 A 25 Bayshore and Geneva Signal 1 0.47 A 0.64 B 26 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 4,2-5 4; F 8A8 fly ~ 27 Dubuque and Highway 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.84 D A.89 qi ........ E 28 Oyster Point and Gull Signal 1 1.00 E 1.43 F 29 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 1.03 F 0.64 C Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 212 Planning. Traffic signal control was assumed for calculation purposes. NOTE: All intersection calculations are based on projected 2000 Baseline Conditions, except for Intersections 23, 24 and 25, which are located in Brisbane. No data regarding cumulative projects that would s€fest- ;~t€~e'these intersections was available from the City of Brisbane, so the intersection calculations are based on Existing Conditions. A-17 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A:_ REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 47 HIGHWAY 101 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE BUILDOUT CONDITIONS JUNE 1994 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Segment Direction Capacity' Volume V/C LOS° Volume V/C LOS° i NB 8,800 9,570 1.09 F 10,770 1.22 F S erra Point to Oyster Point SB 8,800 10,770 1.22 F 9,810 1.11 F NB 8,800 10,990 1.25 F 10,670 1.21 F Oyster Point to Grand SB 8,800 9t93A ~~~#~ ~ `1s#~9 F ~1,3A8 ;#11t1~1 ~g F NB 11,000 12,710 1.16 F 9,830 0.89 E Grand to South Airport SB 8,800 9,A2A 8y; ~,A3 ~~9 F ~ 1A,~78 ;1t~6:'7#J X34 '71 F NB 13,200 15,720 1.19 F 11,610 0.88 E South Airport to San Bruno SB 13,200 10,890 0.83 D 13,990 1.06 F Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. Transportation Research Board, Ifghway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. A-18 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT _ APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 48 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection Type Method' Criterion° LOS Criterion° LOS 1 Bayshore and SB 101 Off-Ramp All-Way Stop 3 55` F 44<` ~ 2 Airport and Butler Signal 1 8.46 #~3~ A 8.~5 ~t1~ A 3 Oyster Point and Dubuque/NB 101 Ramp Signal 1 8.86 ~t12 ......:.. D ~? .. 8.g8 Q~5 ... .. D 4 Oyster Point and Gateway Signal 1 4,37 3~~ F 4,A3 ~4$ F 5 Oyster Point and Eccles Signal 1 4,83 3~ F 8A4 ~?p13 ~ F 6 Airport and Linden/SB 101 On-Ramp Signal 1 8.38 p~8 ~ i~ 8.58 pit H 7 Airport and Miller/SB 101 Off-Ramp Signal 1 8.65 I'~~3 ~ A.49 C'I2 !~4 H 8 Grand and Linden Signal 1 0.55 B 0.59 C 9 Grand and Airport/NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 8.83 #~8~ D 8.>;3 ~i~$d D 10 East Grand and Dubuque Signal 1 8.39 (l.s~ A 8.65 Q6'~ .:...... C 11 East Grand and Gateway Signal 1 8.>~ tf9 E 8.73 ~1:'7~4 D 12 East Grand and Forbes Signal 1 8.~5 ~1~'2 ~ ~ g.7r} E?83 D 13 East Grand and Littlefield All-Way Stop 3 373 F 56~ F 14 East Grand and Grandview Signal 1 A.44 x!:59 A ~ 8.~3 !J<tS~ 13 15 Executive and NB 101 Off-Ramp One-Way Yield 2 238 C 756 A 16 Airport and Produce Signal 1 0.71 D 8.83 ~38~ D 17 Produce and SB 101 Off-Ramp Two-Way Stop 2 68 t3 ~" E 46 ?~4 ~"~ E 18 South Airport and Gateway Signal 1 0.59 C 0.80 D 19 South Airport and NB 101 Ramps Signal 1 0.53 B 0.61 C 20 South Airport and Belle Air Signal 1 8.a7 p~8 A 8.64 9~? C 21 South Airport and WB 380 On-Ramp Signal 1 8.a"9 ~~ A 8.66 ~ C 22 South Airport and EB 380 Off-Ramp Signal 1 0.33 A 0.22 A 23 Bayshore and Old County Road Signal 1 0.57 A 0.66 B 24 Bayshore and Guadalupe Canyon Signal 1 0.40 A 0.42 A 25 Bayshore and Geneva Signal 1 0.43 A 0.46 A 26 Oyster Point/Sister Cities and Airport Signal 1 8k6 ~4~ ~ E 8.5~ ~ :.. H 27 Dubuque and Highway 101 Ramps Signal 1 8.3~ (15~ B 8.73 p D #X 28 Oyster Point and Gull Signal 1 8k5 4~z~~ C ~ 8,g4 ~1 D 29 Forbes and Gull Signal 1 8.~4 E1> ~ }~ 8.45 El&li ~4 C ° Level of service analysis method: (1) TRB Modified Circular 2I2 Planning, (2) 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, (3) TRB Circular 373. ° Level of service criteria are: V/C for Method 1, reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement for Method 2, delay (in sec.) for Method 3. ~:;>:;>:::::::?::::>::>::>:: ::~ed:::~::: ne~:>s:::me~trs ::;esttin~Ye:::~r~:veft~ ...:> .. ~ ~ ;: .::::::.:~ :..~ :.::::::::::::::::::.:.~:::::::.~:::;:.::.;:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.:::::::.I?:..:::::::::::::.:.:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.~:::::::.~:::::~; NOTE: (1) Analysis dee~~ei-includes buildout of Genentech Master Plan, as described by the Intermediate Development description in Chapter 3. (2) All intersection calculations are based on projected 2000 Baseline Conditions, except for Intersections 23, 24 and 25, which are located in Brisbane. No data regarding cumulative projects that would a#es~ a)s"ec# these intersections was available from the City of Brisbane, so the intersection calculations are based~on~'~' Existing Conditions. A-19 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES JUNE 1994 Table 49 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED MITIGATION Unmitigated Mitigated AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour '~ No. Intersection Type Criterion' LOS Criterion' LOS Type Criterion' LOS Criterion' LOS 1 Bayshore and SB All-Way ~S~ F ~b ~ Signal 8.88 ~ 8.~ ~ 101 off-ramp Stop ~ Qfi~ ~ ~?I3 .::. ]~uq~e:# 4 Oyster Point and Signal ~ F ~,8g F Signal 8.88 D 8.88 E Gateway ~ €~ i~8? 5 Oyster Point and Signal ~,Ag F 8A4 ~ Signal 8.~ ~ 8.~S ~ Eccles ~ ~ •.l.) ~t 11 East Grand and Signal 8.88 E 8.~ D Signal 8.8~ D 8.~3 D Gateway E1i`S~3 1~'~~ f?86 ~`i?~ :k''apact ~ ~ ">:`.. E~9~ 13i~3 i ~ ft8 13 East Grand and All-Way ~° F ~6 F Signal 8.~ ~ 8.C8 ~ Littlefield Stop ~8 ~~ ~: 17 Produce and SB 101 Two-Way 68 E 4~ E Signal 8.~ ~ 8.~8 D Off-Ramp Stop t~ 4~ ~~~ ]~ Q~: !iV :.... ..... .;:. :. ~': ~,.. ~,~,;:ju~t.~"r.~', .~~~.::~.F^'~...:G .:.:::::::::.:::::::::::. t7w ~ .~.. :: .:::. ~i~;N ...:. ~i .::: !Jf~ ~:::: i~:: ::.. •''~'!~~ ~i~:k .. :ll ... .... ?ili .. .:.:..... ~;:% .. .::. :: •. ~"'^!!~:' ''1+[i y.~:. ...'.. ~....ef:;'lt13C:.~d, ..n, C ~f ~t ~v~ ~..y. i[Y /~st~ V~~;$:~ ~{ LR pip ,L;t:~YO y+ 'ri'v, {~ ~t ~'.1'.1p.~.:;3! y. ~:5 y~ ;k:~! ~y ~~y~ LLs;X'`J,. y~, 1:T The level of service analysis method depends on intersection control type. Signal based on TRB modified Circular 212 planning, using V/C. Two-way stop based on 1985 HCM for unsignalized intersections, using reserve capacity (in PCPH) for the worst movement. All-way stop based on TRB Circular 373, using seconds of delay. ::::::::;::;;;::;:;T~::tt:;a~ t~ Its :..:::~€~r:;n©d.~ t©c1~~e, a ~~anu~ ;;es~tt~at~;a~':~;~~Stele deT,:. NOTE: Analysis rises-Hemincludes buildout of Genentech Master Plan, as described by the Intermediate Development description in Chapter 3. A-20 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT _ APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES Table 50 HIGHWAY 101 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MARKET ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT LEVEL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Nour Segment Direction Capacity' Volume V/C LOSb Volume V/C LOS" Sierra Point to Oyster NB 8,800 8,860 1.01 F 8,140 0.93 E Point SB 8,800 8,090 0.92 E 9,020 1.03 F NB 8,800 9,300 1.06 F 8,250 0.94 E Oyster Point to Grand SB 8,800 8,499 A.33 E 3,639 4A9 F NB 11,000 9,700 0.88 E 7,950 0.72 D Grand to South Airport SB 8,800 ~r7A '~~4 A.8•Z ~8~.'v.. 1~ 3,339 ~~lt 4.86 F South Airport to San NB 13,200 12,400 0.94 E 10,140 0.77 D Bruno SB 13,200 9,850 0.75 D 12,OS0 0.91 E Capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane. Transportation Research Board, Ntghway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. NOTE: Analysis de~s~includes buildout of Genentech Master Plan, as described by the Intermediate Development description in Chapter 3. A-21 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL EIR IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: REVISED CIRCULATION TABLES AND FIGURES A-22 ~-• • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~a j City of South San Francisco ~ ` ~/~ ,'~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ .P ~ , 0~~ ~) <// ~ ~ V -''~ J~,~'+r. 2 Z orsiEx Pawn ei.w ~ 1 1 4 ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ ASH AV O,v / ~ EG~~ AVD ~{~ ~ C FORGES BLw .~ AV ® u `C ~ ` / re ~~ °`'"~ Aa z ~J ~ 2 ~ ~ .~ ,~ Av 3 ~ cASOr qo ~ ~. Qom. ~' v ~ ~ Q 1 1 2 c' 1 ~ .~ ~ e { T ~~' 2 E wAaes AY ' AV AV ' ~yy AV LAM1tENCE ~ O c~i E JA111E 1) ~ Ci 2 AV = < < > ~' Z a ~~ z z N s ~ utN+ ~v Z ~ LEGEND J~ ~ Stop Sign i 2 ~ ~ Traffic Slgnal eaiF I Numbx of Lones a si Z T ~ ACCESS RD g $ o Q 1 L ~ ~ N ~~ ~~,~ .. o City of South San Francisco b San Francisco eRUwo International Airport /tom F~r1' ~~b/) 3wrce: ~ arton-Aschman Associates, Inc. NOT TO SCALE EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN FIGURE 23 Local Roadway System and Key Intersections City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City of Brisbane % CIty of South San Francisco ,• ~e`' ~~ > •~ % ,~~ ~ 11 J ta~,~ 2 3 orsTE 2raNr Bcw 1 1 ~ A ) ''' 1 3 2 6~~~ ~+ 1 1 1 Fi 1 N "A ~ ~D ~ /t~-R. o Q 1 c .~ OOQ~' ~ 3~+~ 1 .~ raaBES ecw ~F ~O ~•`" 1 1~ Z wi ~~ ~v ~ 2`' c ~r 2 2 ~~~ 0~2 Gv~ ,~~ `~ ~ ~ ~ col 2 ~' 1 ~ ,a z ~ ~~ O ,, v 3 z CABOT ao o ~s Q1. ~' s 9 ~` 1 1 t l 2 °'' 1 1 .P ~' 2 f ~ 0 1 Z ~~* Z E NARRI A V 1 t NiFi A V AV 11 1 ~~~'AV UNRENCE s Cj V E JAMIE 1 CT Z AV 7 7 ~ c c i 1 1 ~ 1 1 d ~ ~ 2 2 ~ 2 v ~ ~ Z utAN A ~ 2 h ~ LEGEND ~~ ~ t Stop Sign 2 2 BED ~ ~ ~ Traffic Signol R 2 Number of Lanes sr 2 2 ~ ACCESS RD ~ ~' ~ g ~ i a ~ ~ N N ` o City of South San Francisco b City of San Francisco/tom N BRlivn c~.... ~ ~ (~~/` Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 27 EAST OF 1~1 AREA PLAN City of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S Year 2000 Baseline Roadway System GD F .a ~o . ,~ ~a v x `v 0 :~ • VJ y n 0 ,~ ;' a .~ cn 5 R ~• 5 m o N ~N ~ V ~N ! iz V ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ V~V~y 111"- ~ `~ ht?~ ~~ sm vy~ ~ N ~ •y ~ r a~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ W v ~ N Ao / ~~~ \ 1C / .i0~al~ r ` \ VI y R~\ ~ ~ 1C / R~ S. AIRPoRi }I ~\ LITREFIELD ~~ ~ o [/Np~, ~ ~- -r„ a ~j 1C]~ ~\ \~ ~ 1~t o ~~ ~ ~ \ R~ o _ } ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Ln N °}= uCi $ ~ m n A y ~ ~O ~ ~ c~2i W / o v ~^ / ~r \\ y s~ y~ ~ S. AIRPORT f~ ~t ~ 1 ~ ~~o j~ y ~ } ~ ~~ D GevvUF ~ A ~ ~ ~ / \ l ~ ~C ~ 7rr,~ ~PTpI K y ~ ~ N OD ~ N ~ O ~ ~ 'I's ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ A a ~ ~/ ~y ltiO~~r 5 ~ ~~ ~p ~ ~ ~ I I v ~ ~ i Y m ~^ ~ ,~ Z 0 chi N m o n r ti eo ~ W ~' MA1g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ fpc~ L ~nD ~ ~ .o ~f p ~ ~ laodan y1 /~ ~~ ,C ~ f' 1 ~~ r ~ t~ itiodyN s ~ ~ f \ ~ y~ f ~~~~ ~ y ~i~ ~ I ~ ~ z 3onaoad ~ a ~~' L ~ I TT f ~ ~"`~~i t^ ~ ~ spa A'O 2 o W o2C "' c = c' ~ 1V C m C/ryDEN AV ~~ ~~ ~N ,yA~,p ~ ~ Ay J v ~ tq V o Av 3Dno0ad .~ p~ tiR' °Rr B C ~ o i ~ W ~^ O 2 db ~ W <~ W N ~ D ~6 L~ ra ~ AFC ~ ~ s O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~R m ~ Z N Y ~ 7t N m u _N ~ ~~ N N 3 N g~ N ~ Z o ~, bD W n 0 cn O cn a ~~ ~'y p .3' 0 ~ ~^ y a 0~ ~O N A~ _r /~ ~e 1~1 ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ N /~• ~ O yZ O• 0 V1 I~r s~ es a a y O A y oNo g D 5 tl a' ~.• \~~ N v N + li ~ 8 3 V ,~ se 7/ ~ u oo P ~~~ ~ moils'- N ~ ~\, ~ Z~ goo y ~Z ~ tier ' ~ ~- r ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4' °°,~r O O ,b ~ ~ O ... S ~ ZZ \~Oi A ~O \ , A L ~ ~y ~ W rAq ~ N L~ ~ O~gti ~jo o ~~ ~ O~~' D ~y~ y~O " - ~/ r Pi / 'q I EFl R/~~ ~~ C ~'~+$ ~ UryOEN _ /~ / ~ ~ 4 '` coq. _s6 '~aJ ~~ a'~i" , o ~~~ R ~ \ S. AIRPORT ~~ ,~ `6 o , p ~ ~ O o r ~\ >s J ~ - \ ~ ` ~ O ~0 yp ~~~ ~ J 590 -? 180 -~ a0 ~ ~~/ qP ` t~ ~~ r~ ~ / ~ o .t ~11 y~~ ~C 1 14S ~ 1 ~ n+1~ $ 2,, o°~ o cirg ~' n~ ` a o N N qy ~ f o ~1 F O 4 y v A/~j C J ~ ~ m aD ~ O W ~O ~SyoV ° ° ° ~. / / O ~n O O ~ b J ~ 115 N U O ~ (/~ b 0 O G u O N N N b N ~ / 4 ~ c /~ y ~ T~ /`~Cr /--- 400 I - 15 I - I f' i `- ~ 5 AIRPORT t ~ BO ~ ~ 5 t AIRPORT F~ ,l ~~` ~ ~ j~ y i Jo~O\ _ 0 ~`^ ~ s,, SS' ~ ~ OJ J ~ ~, o . ~ ~ ~ ~Tr' 1 1 ~ c ~~ is 8J3 >g0 \T zp~~ ~7r ~ ' ' ~ ~ , y1c /~ o N a 5 ~ / / r ° ~ TOI ~Tr 1 ° r °~B °° ~o~F 5 ~ ~ I K - a u~ ~ r ~ o u $ ~P y N N O ~ A'B ~ C ~ o A o y~G ~ ~ da" .5 aa ~ 0> OF>. `gy'p S 4' R/ / '~~~ S ` u ~ N N ~ 1 - Y i i /~ ~ I~~ \~ 1G ~ ~ ~ ~~ I~ ~ BUOUE . AYM31v9 ~ T ~n0 OS ~ ~~ i o /~ p5p /y o ~r 4 u F~. ~ N \ moai'o S9 ~ 0 0 OSf -~ 0~ y c ~ yt, m O~ p~ ~ ti~''fso `` ~ 0 ~ ~ ~GITf'O O.L` 0 ~ ti ~°' ° o ~ fccC fs a ~ g .o ~~ 001 ~ ~ ~ ~/ 55 ~/ 50t 1bOdalY $ ,I ti °a ~~/y ~ - I I YY iY J. ~ L LS `b i S1 \~)1 ~(I(1g j h 1 ~d I I ~ ~ ~ r \y ~~\ ~ K~ >r0 y IO so >o ~o~~ ~ ` ~I C i~ody ~ ~~ 4r ` ~~ ~?6 ~ h 1 (~ Zs~ ~ I I I ~ ~ a U` 06~ ~~/ ? D 30n00ad d ~y N od' z ? qA. •^ E N ~ a° p a C rfl ~ ~2 ~ O2C ~ ~ 2'~ C , C ~~ ' u CINOEN AV ' O ,~ ~~ ~\ SMY M17E°O AV ,ad's j V V Lr AY 3onaoad RpORT B` =c ~ ~~ ~ J ~ (0 ~ ~ n ~ ~° z o ~ C ~ S ~ o 1~O 10 ~ N ~ ~ ~ F~.~ 4` m ~ e v m ~ ° Z Q 'c r ~ r q O ~' ~ N ~e o m N v N 3 N N ~ N ~ N ~ A ~ yoe W z V m 1 0 s~ i ~. A O N ~p t7~ y A ,a ~v ,~ ;a v z ev ~a ~O 2 »a .~ m n 0 CJ] O x cn p a ~_ Vag C'! ~D O -' ~O ^! N O a A 1~y r M A f~D G7 T." ~ ~ y ~ C ~! ~O I~/ O_ C y ~: p~ 7 Y N H A ~~~a N c N ~ V N S u v ! ~ ~ ~ 'ti -o / 1 ~` o ~ ti ~R D R,cb ~ ~?J pt~ 'S 1C O hNRBOR F'' Y ~\\ I??J ~ ORT ~ ~ t ~ I y ~ py5 '~'° / ~~+° 4t o ~^ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~B JZd ~ ?O ~ ~~ ~L ~ J~o ~~Pr ~m ~ C ~ Tye ~_ b N Z o u O ~'~$B ~ ~~J ` ti ~ ,n ~O o~ ~~ , ~ ~ c ~O ~ 6 oa ~ W ~ ti ~ Z ~ S - / I ~/ 4605' \t~ ~? \~~ ~~ ~ _ //4004 y~ R/~c ~ ~~ ~ / 4 u e ~o F/~~ ~~ N u 4 ~ uNO ~ / % t~ gyp/` 41 0 R// 4 a'~'~ ~ ~ `' S. AIRPORT ~ I~'DJ J 1 I o ~~ ~ S ti ° ° ~\ ?00 6O s `f ~ R ~1 \ y ~cTo ~ 'j" 015 ~~y ~p~ s ses - O 95 -~ t - ~ - p ~ / ~ /'~ ~k ~ tlo Js ~~ ~ ~`~ \ s Sdo i ott ~+,~ ~ I ~ ~ op~~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ U '~ U N ~ ~ O 4v F ~ o 40.4 V / / O ~ o ~ m A n ~ ~ c . W G 4~0 / ~ R S~ tirD r U L 200 -'I I I ' ~- 525 Y i `1 ~ 15 - 0 J I°. .~ ~ 105 ~ o u o ~ - / /u AiRPoRr N 1 /. ~ O ~ 0y m R/ ~o , c ~J /~\\ ID' ~ ~o sJ J J \` y 1 S AIRPORT ~5 ~~ ~ I ~ 6 Y . 1 I ~ c ~ 52O `1 ~\ t9~ ~~ ies 1 U b ~ \~ r > ` O ~r GBV 01.C ~~1 N _ .. O O U of NN O N U L! ~`' J (~~11/~ J ~ / ~ ~ US / o OUE- 0 0 o ~ c ` S 4~ o OI p t~i m J pN ^MP artll u o G `~' N SI ~ N ~ ~ NB O o A N N ot`` ~ 5 ~ O8 ~OdaN O~ r0! I~F o Ot rC~C/ J~J~ J u q O o ~ ~, ~? 1 o ~ ~ ~ JJ ~ ~ ~ DUBUOVE ~ ~ .tvnt3lvo ~ -ono ol.+ S~ ~~ N U N bot` /~/ ~ ~ + ~ u ~CGJa.. 'c ~~o SOB ~ g ~ ~ ~ •~ A ~~ \ ~O ~ ~~' f ~ st o -M ~ ~ 6`5 '° ~/ SOS bt1 ~/ y O L ~j 6 t~\ o ~~, o ~ pt~ iyodan ~ e 4 q. ~//~ p~ ~ G ~ ~ cc` J FS u u ~ 1 ,~ J ~ sc~ ~ t ~1 s ' ~ ~\ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ e J ° ~JO~J '~ ~ ~r f I I od 1b 4pt c u O ~~ ~~$,~ ~~ ~ y ~~ } I ~ `o0 0 4yc /~/ 2 of ~ 30n00ad 9t ~y ~n ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 1 ~,~, _- N ~ AO ~ ~ P U N O r =C ~ ~ (~/, 4~ 2~0 C a ~ m C C ) GyO~y AV ?~~`t~ /[\ \ J ~TE"o AV ,.~Js r r V V L'Pv nv 3onaoad 'vR ~'~ ~ Rr 9~ pC r r J J ~ Gl , c x ~ ~ ~ ~ 1yodti ~ ~ m ~ '~ ` ~ ~~`' ~~ N ~ ~ ~ Z y a N j z e` v N 3 N 1lp0~ o /N` z W 1~ 0 N y O t0 y bd A .a ~v . ,~ ex :~ 0 V1 ~o '-n .. -a .~ m H n := 0 0 7~ ~~ 0 ~ m ro O ~ ~~ fD A~ N O O O b a. X5 xA ~, ~A ~~ O D C 0 .. C W 0 NOI 1 U SCALE EAST OF 1~1 AREAPLAN Cify of South San Francisco B R A D Y A N D A S S O C I A T E S FIGURE 31 Public Transportation ~ N `~,0 N V • L yp ~1 O Y P V ~ .. ~ ?~ yu 3 ~ ~ - R~ I MMOgR ~~ Y ~~\ ~~D ~ ~r ~ t • \ ~ \ ~ - / O r ~'° ~ ~O y ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ e 9 b ~ t R\ ~ Q .. N Q O O o sC Y1 7 \ ~0 v ~' .~~A \ 'O a ~' v~ N W A ~' .. W b~ 4 r 41 ~~ W N ' ~1 $ ~ / 4 tie ~~ .. ~\ ~ $ 625 -S O 0.7 ~~ ~ =1p. ~'f \ J o.~ ~~ ~g~ tia ~y~ 4 cos ~ t (~ ~ I I ~ ~/y ~ ~ a ~ ,b ~ ~ r~ .i . 'b 0 g N u '~Y o (~1 ~" 4 4 N ~ ~ H m ~ A m W ~~ O` u u S t- S°S u I~ II~ // ~ ~1pJ\~ K IC \ JJ, ° y ~\o~O ~ h 1 S NRPORi oa`~~ II~ ~~ ~~ j~ ~ a~s~ ~~ ti ~~ ~~,y ore o ~ ~ vObF om /L - S o oy S & Z rr ~ ~ ~ o ~ kt ~ ~ ~o, o MVP ~ ~ ~ G K ~ . C y W 'O O Y A ~ 1 yV ~ ~odti -"F q ~j ~ '°zo ~ ~ ~~~ ~ V f~1 4 .~ 1 ~- L o~o ~- ~1~ ~ c f ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~r~~ rn~ 5LL y1 ~~ Nu g y1 yy[ ~L y m ~ - ~~ U m ~ ococ ~ ~ N ~ t~~ j °Z~y ~e~ W sW .y~/E'° L ~ _ y o d1 f~ ~ 8 IG~ / 1-~ t ~ . ~'4no / ypea y F/ ~°, ~~ R ~~yN qSy f 4I (JIB Y~ ` ~ O O N f ~ ~$t6 _ ab ~- ~ h ? ~7 t ~~~ 1 I ~ m ~ ~y ~ a Se8& l d~ c ~ ~~ 0 44gpy IV ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~V ~~ r V m i V nr 3on°oae .~ '%'~ ~C ~ ~ \\~ _ ~odtid _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca ~ I~ Q~. n e~ O y Gd :o ,a ;v ~a ~o :a -~ n H n 0 g 0 a 3 5 A s ~ ~ ~ ... c . r. ~ o y ~D ? ^' ~~ °, YC7C ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ W ~, a r, ~ ~ x° a cn 0 ~- 0 ~D b ~~ ~O ~~ N `yo N ~~ i V ~ N 8 v ^~ r .Rp A N `1G\~ ~ ,~pP~ \ ' ~ ~ ~O mil' ~O ~ °p ~ a~ ii ?~o y ~t '~ ~ ti r ~ q~ $ ~''~ m ~ h I R \ ~ ~ ~~r ~ ~ O NMy ~^ G O G `~. 4 `~ ~ 'fs ` O ~ ~ ~ ~ ' W y ~ W ~ ~ N ~~ ,~ ' ~ ~~~ ~ ~'~~~ ~z ° ~NO~ X14 ~ ~ ~;~ ~ °~~, 0 ~ ~ s. A r~~~ WO _? J ,o ~ r o Up ~ ~ ,~ s» yo ~r ~u ,~~ ~o ? ~~u ~ N ~o~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ N 1~ A m ~ g 44 W ~ ~ v L / ~~~ O~ EaO '660 ¢¢ r~ bd ~ ~N4 ~ _ ~~~ ~ o ~ ~ o.~ ~ 7 t ~' ~ ~ N ~; ~- 7t er o~ ~ y ~ ~ o ~ ~ r o ~t~ ~P~, ~ r co uF ~ f ag$ , ~ S~ 0 CND O ~ O A ~ r ~~ ~,,~~ J ~44y BgiS / ~ ~ ~ J 1 x(19 q~~ ~ o~ ~ c u C ~ ~o ~ ~L ¢y !1 ~" ~ ~ \ '~~ ~ s Sl9 N OS[ -'~ ° u ~ } ~ p S m .y~ 41-x$ '~ =G~ p9t ~ Syy ~ ~ ~O St` a ~ + 4 °b o Fcc ~'I' '~ u `FJ 1 1 t~~ ~/44~t ~l '~y dN~V $ ~/ ~°~ ~I S ~ ~ /~ ~~(/ ~~ ~ , , ~ i y 'f~ \' 1 ~-n\ o 7~ J } J ` ~p ~~ ~adti S~~ ~ 0u g `~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~+ ' ` ~ r ~ ~ ;~ g m 1 5S yv z /~ pn00ad 4 9 ;n ~ m _ o ` fit ~ u g '" u ~ A .> >o :K :> :~ ~ y ''-n :a -~ m N n 0 g 0 a H 5 ~~5 ..~. __. ~ d y O ~~~ ~' ~, ~~o p b ~ ~ a ~ ^ y ~I e O ~ ~ R. C ~ ? "~ 0 'ry :S 0 ~m y ny O --1 ~~ I ~y !'~ ASr~ l'~ w A :o ,~ ;z ;v ~ N y 'n :a -~ m N ~m~ N V J + N N ^t V ~ ~ v / ~` -I I IN \~~ HARBOR f' i' Y ~~RT ~ r ~ T Q~ 1 p~ 5 .,r~dti~ 17p." 1C l~ ~~ ~ ~\ 4s `r 75 3J ` ~ SS _ ~ T~ '~ 's eo pqZ ~~ ~ ,j, ~ °yy ~ 'j~n ~ OJ, 'ff ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~m ^ y ~~ ~''fb °'P r ib ~ ~ I O L t ~, m o0o T ~' p ~ ~$ e'er?o ~~O J ~ T~ ~Q i° ~fo v 'P,0 ~~' ~w W h wow ~~ w Oa ~ ti -+ ~ `~°~4 O + ~ Aw w N Zq oar 0 ~yS~ oi~~\ - /~ y ~0~~~ v'K ~ y p / y" Nj /~ ~~ C U1iLEFlELD ~~~ ~~ 0 u GG 4NOE^, ~~ l ~ To 1, ~ JS p~ R~j 4~~ ~eJ?o L 7 ~~ ~ /~ ~\ J Jo O S. AIRPORT ~ Jo ~ eA3 ~ J p \\.r ~ 0 0 BSp ~ ~ ~ eo 1~ ~r ` ~\ ~ ~O ` ~ _` _Y`7 / y6 ~/~. is ~ 4 / ~ 4f Ld Ov 455 ~ 160 -~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~y ~/(.~ 4~ G'~ °/ °~ Jp ~ ~ ~~ G N J ?O 0 ~w c u 'fY N 4 - ~Y [~1 ~ ~ O F a ° 4 N o ~ <i 0 y / ~ ~ ° L o 0 1 ~ ~ ~ ° u ~ O G ~ N H pG ~ p ~ / m ~ ~ I ' - I t' ~ '1 ~ 2 p ~ 125 ~ ~ ~ - S ' / / 'VRPORT ~" ~ I. ~Z loo S~ ~W j.`b fo yR~ a 00 ~~ ~\ ~~ ~ o h t 5. AIRPORT sv ~~ I I ~ 1 ( ~ I I ~~PSy ~~ ises ~ZS ~r Zoo zTS ~! o~~~ l o yysy/y ~ ~ ~ u N oy~ ~~ ~ h 1 I I ~ ~S ~o ~B ( ° r ° / OUE ° . ~ °~ a p N ~ ~ q ^MP u N ° ~ N U K N N ~ N ~ ~ ~ A v y9" ~ ~ti ~"~'q~T 'S' r~/y°y `~ y A m pt -1 ~- L ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~~ UBUOUE- ~ ArM31NJ ~ 1 1 -nno se \ pl Ii o o p " j~ psti~ ~ '" ° ~` ~ m S `c~~ o$ ~J oec -Z, " o ~ L z o ~ O N ~ o ,,~ ~ Z~~eo pg` yti,, '4A v ~ S4N 'N11F'O pG~ sy i v N ~. N° N ~ N~ ~ FCC~fs uNi Iu ~ ~ of L o / / 1 osll ~ J~O~~ r ~ ~,n •5 ~ I ~ f tiodaN ~~ ~~~, $ ~ ~ ~ f JJS ~°y * ~ B~\~ ~ I ,c ~p o ~ i oy ~l~ ~~ z ~ 9` ~ 0 onooad y" ~ N I ~ ~ I ~ ~ q N ° S ~ ~J m ~ 3 yc" L~ S ~ _ ~ o N ~ u Y ~ 1l 1~ y ~Nn A '~ o O [i~ ~ OTC °44 qq' jam/ G c a c ~ 4 o UHOEN AV ~ o~J ~~ ~~ ~ 'MA/F'O ~1V ~ Aso 0 r d v ~ ~~ 3~nooa - __ aR„oRT e~ 2C ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" o ~~ c z Odtir ,0 l~ a Z ~ ~ ~FC ~ ! m ~ e ~ N 0 'L F ) i ~ ~~ O~ m -- Z ^ O N ~ A ~ 0 ~ _N NY Bi V N N m ~ 9 . v I,M bp z W .. v. 1~ 0 s~ i y n y~y r+ y O N t71 y -er n ~~ 0 g m 0 3 ~. N A 5 ~ A ~ ~ ~ '' ° o ~. A W .., v _s ~ ~ ~ ~ y n y I~ ~ ~ fD '~ C. ~ ~,~ ~ ~ C r.^ ~ O ~ x~o G ~ ~ 7 ~ y 0 >_ CJ'! 7~ n ~,- O ~ ~D ~ O~ ~O ~~~ IV a y ems' '~ O t0 y Od .a :o '< ;x ;o ~ H • y ''-n :9 -~ m h o m N ~ V N ~{ V ~ pisp .o ~ ~ L ~, ~ ~'~r ?`b ~ 'S ~ C~~1 II I I - t iNRBOR YY i YI ~\~7b N~T ~ ~ ~ ~/° ' . ,J ~ ~ ~N .~ ~~ ~~ ' ~ ~~ 'O ~'~ \? ~ ~ ~' ~~~ ~z / 1 ors '6 'y ~ ~ v s ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ ' 'Pi' $ o m +1 o r ~ , q o ~' o p~ ~ ,,, ;fr \~o, o `~ '~. .p ~ \ to O A T~, "4 ~~ W ty DD ' ~ .+ ~ W 4 ' ~ ~ N z - //d` ~ ~~ao~\v~C/°`'` ~~ ~ ~0 a Y~ /S ~jC /~ ~ '1 ~ 4 4 LITRFFlELD ~~~ ~~ ° G ~y O VNO~y I / $I ~ IZS 1 ( F - /~u ,{v('~0 ,c '° R//4 2' \ SIy1 't7 \\ V~ ]/ ~ r, f ~~ 2O~o 5. AIRPORT ~ ° 0 ~r ~o,! ~' ~ ~ ~\ J2p Z b ~r ~ V~ ,~, ~ o ~ J~J' A~O~b ~Dr 1 ,~ : ~~ tim ~~r ~ o G ~ ,~ ~ ~ rr m ~ ~ ~ ,y ~ w o u t i u o ~~ ~ ~ n o o S o o° ° ~ C J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F p w ~o yoe o _/ N~/ Ua uc Z_ 220 u ~ ~ doe in O ~ ,^ ~~4 T? y- ~ Y ~ `f ~ 15 5. AIRPORT ,l, I~ ,~3 r' ~RPORT F~ 1 4 ~` s YO ~~ S D JPO!r.\o \~ J o `~T ~~~ ~o J/O 4,1 d~' ~~ 1 t ~ 1 I ~ c~E I~ I ~iT3 ~r ~ "° ~ »>lll (igv ~ err o y~1 ~' ~ o .: 9 u N ~~ tr ~ o ~ T ~ ~, /°/ GUf 0 0 0 o v v~ ~^ _QQ P ~ S u u o pNp C ~ ~ e o A ro ~ u ~ 99g~ ~ 001 tiN •5 ~ ~ti~d ~ qT °~j "`+/.o Izp ~V 4 4y ro U' ° u ~ \ Te u W °~ ~ 1 ~ L UL2 - I I Y i R 7~ >e p \~ ~C ~ oUB ,1 /~ ~uE ~ AVM31V9 T 1 ~ CL ~ (,O C ~ ~ ~ o ~P o c \ ` ~' ~ SCII o u S0 _ n O Ot L ~ U SAC ~y ` m ~ ~ ~ y$ 3 u ~ ~ ~A O~ N m p ~~ ~ y~ ~o 1 ~ Syy '~TFO J ~ ecc4`3` ° O ~` ~ '~ R/ ye. s" o4 ~ sy1` an ' ~ ~ °~~ `4d~n` / o o ~ ~ ~ OC L ~~ o ' a jyod '~' \ / . srz Tno .s R~ J ` - ~ V~ 1 N.5 ~ 1 ~ e \b R ~ ~ y J Sp ~~ JJ /~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~l Y' Old ~ N U N od ` / p ~ O~ P ~ /~ '`I11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JJa y, 0~ ~~ ss ? / ff' N 3anaoad 1 1 ~y N ~i n ~ A 0 pp.~ ~ u ~ o °=c a~ V ~ ~ O .9 o _ ~ ~ N` c C m UNO~ AV J' ~ O J ~~~O AV ~ J~O J r ~ m L V V '+.o ~ ~~ 3~nooad NRPORT 9G C o= ~ ,i X71 m N ti 4 ' ~6 L f ~ ~ c` m ~ e Z~ ~ Q m C '~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ < N "~ f ~ N ~ ~ ~ B` V N N ~ N ~, tiog~ W C"7 0 cn 0 x C/1 A 77 ~~ 0 m y b O~ ~~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~~ ~ N ~ d . . ~ C ~ ~ W -~1 ~ ~ d p ~ ~ ~ a ~ 3 7 y " y N ~/ ~ ~ V ~ ~~ x ° C w c ~ o 5 ~ ~ r ~ ~ y W ~o .a :e ,~ :> s H ~ N :~ :a -~ 'f~O N ~ y ~ N g ~ ~ ,~! ~ y ~ ~'~'°b qo$ 01 'S 1C ~ Ii1RBOR f ~ Y ~~ ?J4t ~~T ~4 } ~T - \~sJ y V~'" ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ y ~ ,y1 ~ 7s y ~ ~ St4 ~ s4 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~r ~ ~ , ~' ` c ~ $ O q q v N CD •y ~ a~ ~ ~ W ' ~ N v,~ A /0914 ~~,~U'\ 1C/~ 1,~~ /o'Agc ya°a ~ ~jL /~ °'~'c`'4 FlELO ~~~ ~~ ~ /„; ~ VryoEN x.11 /. ~ a3 °'7'~. 0 6 ~~ ' 7s~Oa ~~01 \ V~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ 5. AIRPoRT L ~ ~~~o s ~ ~ ~ ~0 00 )u ~ `- ~~ ~~s ~ 7\ a\~ \ ,1 ~ O~` ~~~ ~1jaa -~ ? ~ ti ~~i ~ Z~~ ~ ~ e~ is ~ oS 205 ~' 1 ~ ~'~„ t ` o"` o '~. 7 / k ti N ' ~ ~ u~ qy c~iY^ °u m L w a 4 F O 4 v O °~ V J ~~ m ~ ~ ~ '~ A F~Ln MM W p W m / ~41~ 4 1 X14 0 ~g U quo ~ ~ $ ~ b NO4 - C 1V / 4`' ~ K~ ~,}~ ~ S I I ~ i Y ~ °0 5 AIRPORT I I i Y r- s+o -/ ~IhPPOgT N 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ O $~aJJ.Ys \ \~ O ~\\~ R 777 ~ y x\ 7 . {'.,I 1 1 1 ~ 0 ~ 1 I ~ c'E ~~D u J~ ` '.\C J1 ~ ~ 0 OG B 5 ¢4 ~ O~~ ~ ~~ o ~ I ~ `S 7~7 rr ~o~f ~ ~ o ~ ~ o o a ~P K o N ~ N O ~T N 7 4 ~ A o a ~ ti o 0~a .cam r 0~ ,J~ ~ Sao ~ q ~~7 ~/% 'u , ~/ 41 ~° a L ~ ~ '~' o ~ v ti ~ 14 t o5~ t ,a .- ~ 1 rno SS ~ 1 0~ ~,, o ~ O ~ N ~~ ~~l 'N" o ot 4y m a2 ~w ''t^~. !^ u ~ \ O~ ~~!• s W L - OSt '~ ° u 4 n z c o~ N oy\~~O 1 ~ r ~ A"~O °L` ~ ti ~ ~ ~ o v I I e~`~ 1 q v a y R/ 540 ~~ 4 , , '7 f L s• ~ p~ ~/f s f y1.1' N $ ~g ~ laoda v o ~iC ~ ~'~ ea s~'a rsE~~ ~ ~~n f~ (~ .g I ~ I ~ ~R ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ss ~ ~T I ~ °o sb ` l ~ ~~ ~ od ]~ S~ /' o o ~ '1~ /y ~ / ~ 4r~ ~ J~sb /y ~ o ti I* ~ ~ I ~ ~ a I I ~ ~'"~ A 0t ~. ~ ~ N 3onooad cF° ap .~ m o ~ g C1 '~ o NN p A~ ~ ; O2C 4 O ~ ~ C y 0V N / a Uyp~ AV ?io J ~~ ~~ ~'WIF O AV 7 ,bass v nv 3onaoaa y A.q,,aRr ti,~ r s~ o=c ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n dtir ~ 0 2 c W x ~ ~ ~e y,~o m p ~G ~ ~ r 4FC ~d~ °~P ~ ~ s Z m N j L ~ ,,~ Lei ~ tl N N O N j r N ~ ~ tioq~ N GJ z ~ ~~ 0 O iC .T' C./] i7 .~S i~ ~;,- 0 y~m y N .~ O ~ ~~ ~~ v IV s~ i y ems' y O t0 ~y W ,y ~..--. ' " g , r ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~', O T bo ~ ni ? '~ .~ O ~ 5 1 a y y ~ ~ (~ ~ O y 00 xA a 0 ~ r ~ ~ ~ A~ r 1 V N 1 r )s ~, ~ Jo ,~ \ la ~ os~ ~r o 0 ~..~ ~ es s,~ ~! s)o y ~~ ,~°,~ V J t N dh ~ W ~ ~ v,~ N R/ °°~ _/4y~ l'D N y~ 4~~ ~/yy ,.3.'~\ -~ CF ~~~ "~~~ ~1 LITREFl0.0 ~~ `~ ~/NOEN ~.I,1 / ~ ,/s 'GJ.~O ]j ~d~~VB ~ R S. NRPORT ~~\?, `'O 0 ~r R/ ~,\° J ° ,LS Y ~\ 8p ~~ ~~ J 0 ~\~''~ 825 ~ )° ~ ~ / JS ~i ~J`s• tos -- O ,,` ~ t N G U G~ p~ °u o q F- N ~ N ~ n' A O ~ m y0yti W q c Gv y N o ~ ~ O -/ y4 / O G R/ / ~~7 ~UN L 308 8 u o o G N +` ~ y YY o F- 805 ~ toBS '~)RP ~ ` i)S ~ ~ J y ~ ,~ 1 ~, r- se 1 ~- ~-- ,e ~T 14 ,~ 818 °~ ~ u j?O ya ~ h t (S~. AIRPORT tPo _ ~b e ° ~ ~~ e° °?J Oyu ~~ I 1 I r ~ c~Ti goo y ~~ ~r °~ ~°ot"' u o o u U °~~, ~ ~ rr o ~ T r' ~S /°, 0 o r B°~~F ~ ~ ~N ~ o u u ~P 0 ~ K ~I `~ N N 0 J ~ Ng J ~ 6~ O A Sf -~1 O~yt -/ r 56~ ~N ~' ~: )O) q 'Wio ~y et e' J° ~ + ~ v NN ti {~ 1 R ~ °0 ~ ~ ~ ~ °Ue°o~F ~ Ar~~ t I s srs ~ ~~ o /~ tt ~y ~, ~ 4 `" ~c~ \ \ ~ ~s 4r SLY ~ -~ oa ~, w J u Y 5~ iy °, ~ O Oyt m ~ ° 9 A O O~ N ~ N ~y~`>eo ` + r Ol ~N'Kt7Fp L r NSG f ~ J Fcc~fJ` ~ ~ `O~ al bQ ~.~ ,~~O.y Ot6 ~ 4 ~ ot~, odan ~ ~ ~ No~~ / ~1 ~ 1 - . y '~ °osz '~~~, r r~' f ~ .5 '1 ? f ~ ~ y~ ~ '~~ . ,as `~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ss J~J ~°~~" t- JJs .~ r ~ '~ ~ odti 1~ S°t ~ ~ u ~ ~ J ~ fJ' ~- $ B ° Z '1 T f ~ a ~ 4 ~ b qty /b Ot ? ~y ~n 30f100ad ~t 0• L in ~ ~ o ~~ S a J C Am ~ ( ~ o " O N c N A ~ ,, eQ~ ez 'da. to n e~ '~. y O ~~ er. l0 y Gd A :v ,~ ,a ;v ~ (n CA '-n :a -~ m H n 0 cry 0 CJS i~ 7~ 0 ~ ~D ~ 0~ ~O w m 0 H a H 5 t~ A O K ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~5' f° c 0 ~ ~ f~~D ~ C v ~ ~ W ... ° m~ ° N N V N ~ V ~ ~ 4~\ ° ° FNRBOR ~~ +~ ~ d ~ ~~ ~ 'kP 'Pr ~ J~J O\b 5 oJ~~ ~ I~d~N r oo~~ ~~ J ~\ ~ ?J s y T } 7j y ~\e~ NCO oaL ~ ~ ~A OSS ~ $ ~~ ~ a {~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'.o J o ~, ,~ SOP ~ .. ~ I ~ U ~ ~ O ~~ ! ~$ ~q ~ S \ JO q v '~ o,P^ N ~ •5 .+ CD L~ 4 .. W o` ~ ~ N v .pq ~ 9 ~~\ ~/~4~ 0 ,~\\\ K y5 ` ti ~O R/ /~`' ~ ,C ~' 0` UTREiIEU) R/~~ ~~ O UrypEN _ l~ / ~~ ~O FF" 'pi. ''o ~ ~]I 4 O ~ V, R ` a\ ~\ '° ~ ~~ S. AIRPORT ~ sJ ~ m O ~ ~T ~ O *b y o C, ~~ oJS is ~ ~ \ _ \ Va a~ \ ~1 o .G ~,~ ,a J .~ ~ ~ ? ass - sos ~ ' ~ err ~ ~ ~ fir,-. ~° •~ O O 7 00 ~N ~ ~ T r ~ 8 0 '} 04 ~ W L' ` 4 C `. ~ N~ G m O _ F ~ o ~n` D / qu V i~ ~ t~i1 ~ m ~ A T n ~ m m 44 W G OV ~ ~ F/ P Z_ 110 o u o 5 Z u m o o ~ ro ~~ ~ '^ / ~ I - . I Y ~ `1 ~ 15 ~ `1 ~ 525 I / / ~7R~°ORT N 1 4 ~ s ~ q, Jv.Ji7' y ` \ * ~ JO ~T °°~`~ ~~'~s O OJ S. AIRPORT ' ~~ `~ T ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ao J7s°\~- } ono ?s5 7 Y7 ` ~\iV~ ouB ~~ _ y50 ~L ~ u 4 ° e ~~ o a ~ ~r- / ~ ~ / ~ 1 O ~ I ~ ~ 707 UGliE O / O O c ~ ~ K O o P ~ O N G „~,~ o N ~ N O ~ N ~ o A o w r/ S~ bN 5 ~I 1b0~ ~/P B7s lJ, ~ ~j ° ~ y UI IN Iu y L 1 h ~ \ - 7jBO\7 ~C ~ 71 ~ pUBVO(iE- ~ ozt {' i 4 Arnt3t~ ° ~ f o N 4 f ~ see -S me o , ~ ° q9~o< ~ m c~iy~, ~ S so it oec -Z N o ~ ~' •~ ~ p o ~ O N ~ r Oe q 'v 5°~~ ~ v i i eti ean yN~~' r ~ ~ r o ~ (T ~ 1 L ~ a ,° oy\\ ~ t~~ ~ m ~ \ ~ ~ \ / ~~C ~ ~\ ~s ` ~ Ja . 'J ~~~ ~~ t l~adyN .g ~ I ~ ~ b l~ ~~''~~'' ~ h ? ?a~ r ~~~ ~ I \; o" ~ y or z ~\ ~ ~ L 3~naoad o ~ I I ~ ~ ~``~~y S ~ ° ~y 'A 0 o, ~ o S N O a ~ L ~ 2C W ,~o w m l p C ~ ~ = / L 7rypE.N Il , ~J \ r J ,WTE'O AV i JS @p O J V ~ m a V v,7q ~ ~~ 3onooa a A'~RT 6~ C ~ ~~ ~ (71 ~, ~ n aN < ~ O= ~ C ~ Z ~ itiOd N~0 ~ ~ ~ f+F o~ ~ ~ z C _~ E m ~ ~` _ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ye N ~ N Z e 3 ^_ ! N '' a ~ N i V N ~ ~~ e z ° ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 1~ e N !~'~ y O l0 y W .a :o ,~ ,a ;o ~a • H :~ ~~ :a -~ m fA n 0 g q w 0 5 r fD D ~ a e~ ~, b W cn 0 >` cn ~' 0 y~m y N b 0~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ may (~ A `b o X ~ ~ O A O G ~• ~ r 0 c^m p N ~~o r V r N Y u S n'' 2 4 V ~ ~- `rBt~ .o 1 ° D ~ f ~'1 I I 4y wweoR ~ 1 Y ~~ '~'~bpr _ /04 ~ Rl ~ 5 o OL ~J \ f ~dyN OVA ~r ~ ~ `? ~o*o N ~b ~ ~o e ~t ~ ~o /- °LS ~ O1^ m ~ ~ 1 ~ y $ ,p e~ Or O ~ V m O o u ~ ~C ~\~, ~p `b q ~.c,~~B ~O N ~, W ~ •~, r ~~+ W a r W ~ ~ W ~ v N ~ °ti.~ , `'o ~~ b ~ y°o~ ti~° K ~` ~ \ ~~ UTREFlELD ~C ~ ~~ p ti ~Z3 UNOE~, / ~~ ~i~ ~p R~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ]I ~ ~ `~~ 5. AIRPORT ~ 7 ~ pp ~ ~ \T ~ J 0 Y p y 1G~ ZZp Bs 7\ \ _ `^ \ J, ,p 1 ~ ' Jo L otec /y `~ O g~ ~ 3s r~ - O ~ / gy y ~/ q ~Jp ~~ f~ +O \I l r/'~ s s~O 1 y~1 ~ ~ ^*/a~, 7 ~ v e 2,, y y 4 AIL- ~~' ~ / ~ O C U ~ N f (~1 G O N `" o v V q ~ 'a ~ v~ to o !^ ~ n ~ m ~ o W ~ rya o ~ 7~ °~I I°~ ~-- eoe ~ i `- ~ 15 I~ I' L L- tos 1 4 /"$U ~R"ORr N,14 ~ S ao ~ ~j ~ ° Si ° ~ ~ R p +IY ~\ ,~~~p Qt ~~ ~ \\ p 1 S. AIRPORT yL~ ~~ ~ I ~ . t ~ G+ I ~ ~~ )p JJ~~~~ T~ J I o o \~ .\ JI ~~CC } ~ / ,y D(,BU / / I ° ti /y fin' o u~ \~, ~ u m O~~ s3 ~ ~ ~ r~ {-~I 0 1 t ~ LS Tp VU o o ° E o z < oy° o o w , ~ ~~~ 'AMP u ~ -i N ~ N ~ ~ NB r O o ? ui N Y ` ye\~od~N S 1 a `'11/P ' S *~\J ~j ~ y O O y 9~ L ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 t (1~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ o ~I UB~UF ~ s . - AVM31Y0 rns ou ~ ~ 1 c\ ~ ~ a O a f ~ o N Sc ~ 4F~ ~ ~ U ,~ ~: ~ see -? o se ~ p N O~G\ ~ ~ ~ Q •~ U A ~~ ~y~J ~ ~ ~ 'io~o ea~~ ~ ~ '~1TF'O o4 \ i ~ FC~~fs $ O of L ?~~~ R/ ye• y ~/ S2t ~ ~ ~ / w ~/ ~ ~ ,,, °o ~ S1' \7~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~-n\ J y ~~ tr//y iw+ u o 1 ° y9 "~ ~p pJ BS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `INJ `6 p y4 z ~y 3~n00ad cF ~n y°~ 9 1 ~, ,~ o G A m N Zp.O O N~ O ~c ~ o ~ ~ ti ~° ~ ~ ~ a C ~ 4 C c 4N0~ ~~ 1 ~o 1p ~~ ~r \ ~~~ AV ~I J JOO J` J r v v z.~ Av 3onaoad op tiRP ~, opr B C ` O= ~~ ~ \ \ \ _ ~tiodtic+ m ~ ~ ? ~ W I~ _ a~-. e~ y n e~ ~a, y O ~O ~A bd ~o . 9 :v ,a :x :d ~a H ''-n n 0 r~ ,~~, H s a N R N 5 r ~ 9 cn 0 ~- ~~. y~ C m y .~y O --1 ~0 ~ ~ fD ¢ ~ ~ N _~S ~• ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~' bn~ ~3 ~ x~a Q rl ~' ~ ., N \~q V N 8N~ r V ~ ~ Se~(J ',aJ p\y 5 >!N ~ O~'\ 7~ ~uReoR ~ i Y ~ ZJ4r O v'~O~vr ~ ~ 'Ql ~ ~s s ~ ~~ V~ ~ a ~~ ~000~ o~ o ~ w ~ ao ~1' ~ ~ ~s ~~ ~T °ao ~ syt ~ tim ti ~q ~ ~ ~ 1 r ' ~° ' ~ ~ '~ ~~J .~ ~. ~~ i o _ _ s ~ n ° u ° , ~y~' ~ ~ ° ~A \ O O Q ~ 4 N ~ ~ .~ 4 0 .5 r ad ~ V OD c~" 4 'a r GJ ~, 4ti9. ~ ~ v N O 06 4i \ L 0 ~' ~~S ,~ ~ o y ~~ ~ ~ 4q Fl J ° ~ c q " O uN ~ l l ~ aFN i ~ CT 'Pj` 0 ~a ~ a ~ J y 0[~ ~ \~ J`f S. AIRPORT ~ B ~e ~ 'r J s ~~- 1L~ O aJ0 ~~ O ?' l ~\ 3 r ~s \~ 0~ ~1 \ 0 .av qq ~ Jia J 111DDD~~r ~\ /~1 Po 303 310 -~ 1 Ya3 ~ f~ y /~ ~ ~~/ ~ ` ~ ~ (/, 7d \, / ~ r~ ,o e$ ~ 1 ~ I o o 0 ~ L. o N ~ + N 7` O rl ~' ~ O 4 ~ F A r e Vb ° `~` ~ o` ~ ~ N ~ ~n o ~ ~ n n W cD F G q W ~ 04 y~4 1 1/ Q SU U u° L_ 130 3 ~o o ~ ~ n, O - / c 0~/ / q4~ D~ r ~ I ~'7 ~ 85 I '7 r_ 3 t0 A~/~+p~Rr t" 1 f ~ g0 4 ~O° bb ]0 ~4f\ ~f R \ ~ ~ ~\~ ~\o'JOes y h 1 (S~. AIRPORT ot~ ~~ III 1 (~ I I c~ ~ ~~ s~5 J zo ~ r~ss s J \ ~ y ~l /11 o~e~o ~ q N N U ° o 5 ~ ~ N ~ O ~ r~ o ~ T r' ~S ~o, ° ~ / ° o F o A ~ ~ c a° j ~ o ~$ ~Ns+ o° "1 N OD N O ~ (7~ N -+ O oS A ~i ~ u ~ O\L ~ os LyaeaN s ~ 'O, r~A ~qq,L 7JyJ~J / ~ m w r.~ PP o u y ~ GB~OI ~~ .pn~ O[t o R l o ~' ~C ~ ~, v 'E ~ ~ AVM3LN0 OBZ ~~ o P \ 4q m C q L A ~ ~ ~ O ~O W //~ 'Y`~ J ~ ~ ~o° SL1 ~ ~ Ap~.O p1\ ~ ~ P J O V, a o P FCZ,TFS _ ~o s .o !~/ Og'/~' Y --// qi `/ q~t ON11'I y ~ °~ ~ ggp~d ~~~ ~~ s - I f' `-' °°r~ ~~ ,~h?° r \ ~ o ~~ ~Od q`\ ~ u u '8 ~ ~'b~ ~O ~ ~ et •ro ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 c ~, `o dj9oe ~ z /y ,n a aonooae O\9 I ''~`x„ ~ ~ N ~ I. u o ~ m ~ ~ L o ~ o ~ ~ p `~ v r 2c ~ 4 ~0 1, G ~ V 2 O 4/ C >, N / Ga C y CINOE.N AV ~? ~~ \ \0 S'aY ~ ~ .~, ~Jo ~TF"O AV 0 r i V V L'P-o nv 3onaoae .UR °~c r ~ Rr e~ p2C ~ W f ~ ~ \ Oa~ Z ~ ,e 1ti ~ _ ~F~G ~ - ; ~ ~ '__ m 0 7G ? ~i "~ ~~.p m $ ~ 2 N ~ ' ~ ° N r a r a~ N N 3' r N >,p0~ N V z a ~ GJ ~. y A y G1 .a K ex :d ~ N • H s ~ :a m n ~~ 0 cn 0 aC V1 so 3~ a c:~' 0 Jm ro 0 ~~ 1~ b N y -~ + ~ 5 8 ~ A c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ p3~ z ~ ~ C G7 3 ~ ^s O a A R ~ j, ~ ~ ~ ~ ' N Tr x~~ ' ~ _ r v Q. 1~ 0 IV y A ~. y O l0 y Gf .a :v ,~ :> ;v a ~o .~ :a m fA °A. ~ N ~ e° ~~ V N ~ a S W W V ~ ~ '.' ~ f ~ I - I I - R FNRBOR Y i Y \~ q~,,~ N " "n? ~ !~ ~ ~~ ~ 5 '°\~ ~ ~N ~~1d ~~ ' ~ ~~ I~ ~ ~' 'O ~~ '21~ ~ J~ ~ 'J JJ ~Z ~ ~ ti m 1(5 ~ y~ ~y` ~~ gg~ 71 ~ '~1r' ~ y ~~r Ij ~ ~ ~r r , ~ ~ ° ~ ~, ` 4 ~ v,~ N 9~ ~ .y OD , O~~ (a O~ Q n ~ ~ v N ~P R/ ~ ` ?~ / ,r~ ,~4~~\ _ 1C/~~~5,~ v~ ] 1 5i 04~ la / ~~C/ ~~ ~1 ry ~4 / ~~ o ~ Cj Fl~ ti _ G •~ uNOFiy ~1 / ~ ~ `- r ~1 ~0 1ON' c,~' o\ ~4 ~y ~` \ / ~ ~ ~J S. NRPORT ~ IO ~ ` DO ~ ~ 1 ~ \ V~ R y \ / ~O~'4 " ~~y ,J.J`'J~ b ~ 80 ~ ~ 5 /y ~ / ~/ Q J1 ~~ ~ ~ 401 / Sf )a pti ~S ~ I f ~ 1 I ~ P 4~ b ~y,~ O 4 c#1 u N v M N {. I~ ti N a ~ ~) O OV ~~^ m ~ o ~ ~' A ° ~ m ca F ~ 4 W ~ cP m.` P ~~/ o y g o N L 33s -- ezo U o ~ o o N ° ~, r~/~ j~ S ,L~ i' JI . I I - ~- f ~ Y ~ 30 I I - • Y ~ ~O,o - / / '~/RPpRl N,1 4 ~ ')1 i ~~ ~ ?J ~n I J K R\ ~ ~\~ ~~~ \ >o,~ ~1 I O /I~ a~,I *1 S. AIRPORT "~ I 1 ~ 4~y 1 I ~ c•E z1. 1 ~ 1G~ ~ ~ moo \r o ~~0 ~ U \ ~ V1 ~` O` 0`01 "` c Pro a ° O~~ ~ N r~-- ~ *f ~ I ~ ~ I07 BUOVF ~ ~ P 0 o N N O ~ N I C ~ p o A J y ° Sg`C C Ogg d (~ 5 r~ 1ti0 a 0I O~ ~N '~o - / + 01 ~tJ ,V/ \~ y u ~r a N N O y ~ 1 ~ L szc 1 h R ~ ~ / ~'o~~ r- I y r °~B~ouF ~\ , AvAt31w~ ` rn0 oLL 1 y, ii O ~ N S ~ ~ u~ ~ ea. m ~' ~~j>, ~'F I ~p~',r OOSI oe --~, U g U w m ~ c~ L A e ~~ O m J ~ ~JSO ~ <p1 ~ SAry MA)~O s~ i QQ 0 fc~,~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ Ls ~ s ~ ~i 4~ ~ s 0 ` ~ o~ o r ~ ~` ~y0d111V s v \ G ~ r ~/ / Gb ~\ ~G ~ ~ 1 ~ s t ~ / ,o sJ~~ r N .g ~ I I dN ~ _ ~ Ir~~ $ ~ ~?s Jo ~'o t Ins ~~~ ~ ~ O / ~' uu Pr b" ~r f '6 04 ~ 's eo ~- ty 1 I $ 7~0 ~ 1 ~ Z~ n ~ o N N pa ~ C C 04 ,~ ~O2 = O N C ). /- C y ~ I LINOEjy AV ~~ \~ r~ \ sw ~~O AV y \`{U.°s J v ~ ti,~ A~ 3~naoad °9. aR'~Rr B` c o2 ~ i X71 !m ~ 2~' tir ~ ~° ~ ~ '< 19 lb ~ = 4~o M _ g N ~ ~ ~ m ~ r...l~ o s N ~ a~ N N N+ o ~' tip9~ N V W z 0 cn 0 » ~+-~ -e sa 0 ~m y .,y 0 -1 ~0 y g =° a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ °' _ ~ d ~ C G7 5 ' ~ 9 w Ad ~ " O y W ~ if ~ x~~ s r .. a ~~ 1 0 N tr s~ i n ~. 0 ~- ar. y .a ~O • ,~ ;x ;v ~a H n ~ '-n :a -~ m N o`~ `~o N V N r t ~ v de ~ ~ ~ u Yn o `~P / ~` - ~~~ i111RBOR Yf i Y ~RPoRT ~ } T ~ ~ `ri - / `1 •5 J~P O~ ` yLbOdaN L ~d ~ ~~ ~ ~ u ~r ?J °J `, t Qt ' \\?~ ,,~ \} JO °p O4L /' '~ ~ B Oyy q ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 0'S~ a i~ I o J, ~ .. u ~ ~ o u o O e~, ~m I YJ ~_ gyp' o 'L`G A p .1~ ,~ e O .o y 4A~, ` N ~ -y r ~~ ~ °D e r W 4o n4 ca 0 ~ N L'P.o `~ _ /CPS, J ~s\R/ /~y °~``j` ~ - /O 4 ~'a R/ /~ R~1 1 C \ o4 UTTI.Ef~If10 ~~~ ~~ ) /G sy uHO~ ~ / / / ~ ,° F.i j ( ~ ~ 4~ ~ CQ I~1p ]~ ~ 1 ~ s. AIRPORT ,6''[r ~\ p ~ o o ~, o ~ . ~\ °p JS ?a ~ R ~ e ~~ s ° ~ /y po ° y aos ~ s o ~ sus ~ ~ ~~ / 9P ~ ~? l r ~ ~ \ .o Jig ~ i Ld i e ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~ 4~ 4yti C 7L ~ (,. (, y O y f-]i lJ~ u N N Al ~ p F o 4 4` °o V ~ N ~ ~ o ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ Oy4 O1 G ~ y ~ O ~ ~ 1{0 o ~ , o u c p O o G G ~ 4 p~ ~ DL am J1 _ I - I ~ i Y ~ 20 I, I ~ ~ SZS i `- r- ' / / 'UR•~pRT N,` 4 ~~ ~0p ° o ~r~' ~ D rp "T R \ pp ~/~~\\ ,p psS C d \ {--, * S. AIRPORT ~~ I 1 ~ O I ~ C~ 6s j~ ' J?O ~~ ?s0 ??S ` \ ~ y l C Ov B S L ~~/ y y ° a ° C ° U Z~r- ~ ~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ COI O ~ o UV Uf A ~ N o S~ ra~~. ~ ~ RWP °o° y `~o N ~ N C N ~ O o A SI yyi Off. ` q~O~I ~~ O~" _ ~ J ~o YY ~ ~ R D/O ~ ~ ~ ~ OuBUOVF ~t AYM31~ 1~ * J 1 TI110 9e ~ O~ p o O~ ~y ° c'~ S C \ \ 4. YT SSL --S 06t -~ C'" N O~ ~~' c ~ y9 Si ~ ~ fi ~ n ~ ~ A 0~~ Oy ~BJ J \~~o ~~ g1ti 1~ ~ s'W ~'FO ~/Sy4~~ ytti dan 'N4 ,~ 4 J O f OC`fS N IN ~ ~ ~ oz~~ J , „n° f p f ~ . ~$ ~ '° F/ / / ~ y °p 1 p ~ t (~ fly oy o ~ J ~' °J ~ pJ ,,, ` ~ 0~~ 2 ~ 4r 3°n00ad y" ~n ~ I ,~`, w G p JJ O~'~ L To p ~ N O ~' p '~ o 02~ ~ C a C N / c VNOEN AV y 7`~ I~ \~ ~ \ ~1 ~TFO Ay ~ `IQp~ i V m V v ~q o,~ Ay 3~nO0ad ~R~RT 9~ 2C ~~ ~ ~ ~ f'~ Od ~ ~ ~ A g ~~ o Q 2~ ~ `~ I^ e ~`~-. ~0 lb ~ m p ~~ = ~ i Ec °'~ ~''~k m _ L 4 m ~ Z ~ 'y et N , o N . N j N o ti°eti~ -~ N V W y N~ z ~1 C7 ~• 0 cry 0 rl.y n H~ 0 ~ JD ~ O~ r0 rC ~ ~ H C7 ~~„ ~ ~;w ~ FBI ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~-, '7 f D ~ 3 w y ra ~ ~ ^- A 7d '' a r*. ~ ~ ~ 11 t~= ~ y O A 5, C G ~ ~ ~.. ~ y I ~A A e~ O tp y A .a :v ,a ;v ~a N ''-n :a -~ m N j y c N V N ~r ~a N ~ ° LS~ 04 r FURBOR ~~ \ 'sJ~ f ~o~N 5 ~o0,~d a~\ ~, ~ y 1 ~O~ i~ ~~ ~ rya I nn o ~ u \_~o 4 L o 2 0 "G`S~• ~ O .ti r -~ ~ ~ v N t~ N d OD W ~ po 01'^ CD Ada 4 4S N ° ~.~'' ~ 00 ~?~,T v /445' ~'\\~ ^'~/~ r LITTLEFlELD ~~ ~~ E/NOEN -III ~ 1Z5 'G,.\c IV ,~° ~ ~ ~ S. AIRPORT ~~ ,~ ~° ~s ~~' ~ s ° ~~ J s K °~ S \ rjl• ?0 y~ ~~ O /~ J s BIO ~ ~ ~ ~y qP ~ ~~ d~ti ~ i~O 100 -~ 1 Ir- y~ / I ~t,~, d 1, 411 75 ~ 1 I 4~~jy1 m 4 X00 4 `4,fy ~ c o° ~ - u u ~ t'i N g ~ m m F o _ W _/NO p ~ ~ p ~ ~ A ~ ~ mp ~/~Oq°~ L L zzo a I/uo~, }` c ~- BS ~ ses ~R"ORT N ,` ~` I&0 ~ 'rs ~ y ~ S. AIRPORT ~~ J00 y t ~- J \T /~ ~\~ ~ N J r Noy ~P o °UB~°Oe yt A `^ ° ~' ~ S ~ O o > ~ ~ `O~ `~ N ~ ~ ` C a! aJ ~ 't' _ /46 u ._~ • o y _ 00 yl,Od~N 5 'AMP ~srJ V~ ~ f' • '7 t_ 01Z YY i ~ _j,/~ ~ ~O ~~ ~ ~ ~~ oUB~UE .1VM31~ OIZI O ~ b ~, ~F~~ 'ate ~ SB '~ o 0 OC i ~ ~ 4CC /y {~ so S ~ "0 4~\ ~ c~ !~ `$L ~~ z ~ O ~ ~ o ~ ~ oy~°o \ i ~N 'k17Fp 6 ~ FcZ,lf9 cu ~ OObr ~j 0~1\ $N~$ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~/ ~\ Odan ~ ~ R~ J B pei 's °~~ J1 ~ ~ \ J LOC [•0 \~ /fir K~ J/J ~~J\ 1 O° SiZ ~ ~ y \\ 73 JS ~ ~7' °s~u ~ ti~ .5 f '~ T ~' f '~ ~~ e ~' 1 ~ '~ t lbOd O\C ~ u ~ S 44 ~ m~ S ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ o e sso ~' ~ s 40 LP n "' ~ ° a n o ~ 4uuu~iii "-` o n y g N S H A s rC 0 c~ 0 >c ~~ tl..~ ~~ 0 ~m y b O --i I~ ~° ~ ~ ~ N O W ~~~ ~~/- A~ ~ ICI ~ y ~~ A O o +~ ~ .-S.. ',' tJ, ~ a ~ "i ... A Appendix B SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES This section contains development policies for the East of 101 Area to which any development proposed in the area must conform. The policies are arranged according to the elements of the Plan in Chapters 4 through 13, and are taken directly from those chapters. Further discussion and explanation of the Area Plan Policies is contained in the individual elements of the Area Plan. Each Plan policy contains the word "shall" or "should", which indicates whether the policy is mandatory or advisory. Policies that contain the word "shall" must be followed by the City and by all land owners and developers in the study area. Policies that contain the word "should" are advisory. ~d .. ....~.., .,..._ ~.~....,Y ~.., ....~ ..~. ., .b.J ~..~., .....b.... .... .. ..... .. ....... Y.,......,.., ...,.. A. Plan Goals 1. Land Use 1.1 Promote planned industrial, office, and commercial uses in the East of 101 Area, and discourage other uses that would be inconsistent with these uses. 1.2 Encourage development that enhances net revenues to the City. 1.3 Promote development that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco. 1.4 Encourage development that respects and is in character with the Bay environment. B-1 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES 1.5 Provide for the development of more retail services to serve the employees of the East of 101 Area. 1.6 Encourage the use of downtown South San Francisco as a commercial center for those employed in the East of 101 Area. 1.7 Provide child care facilities in the East of 101 Area. 1.8 Encourage the appropriate development of additional hotel facilities in the East of 101 Area. 1.9 Preserve historically significant sites and buildings. 2. Circulation 2.1 Minimize vehicular circulation impacts. 2.2 duet-ess»?~::.:.:,.:.::....:::<:::,,:.,:,::.~ `..:.::`'~: ~~ '~,<,._".::,..:.:::.;.:....>_:.;~.:t~ .<:.,;..:.::.~.. :.:.:..:.::.:: ~. ~p~ b~~. ~:»:>::::<:~1± ~sr....~. Sys s 2.3 Actively use the time during which adequate transportation capacity exists in the East of 101 Area to find transportation solutions that will allow for continuing development of the area. 2.4 Provide for adequate amounts of parking in the East of 101 Area. 2.5 Encourage and support transportation modes other than single- occupancy automobiles including ridesharing, bicycling, walking and transit. 2.6 Promote the use of public transit to and within the East of 101 Area. 3. Public Facilities 3.1 Provide adequate sanitary sewer system capacity, water supply and other utilities to serve proposed development in the East of 101 Area. 3.2 Ensure that new development has appropriate drainage in order to minimize environmental and flooding problems. B-2 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES 3.3 Regulate growth in the East of 101 Area in accordance with the ability of the Police Department, Fire Department, and other public agencies to provide adequate services. 3.4 Promote water and energy conservation in all new development. 4. 1iit Recreation 4.1 Encourage uses which take advantage of the .San Francisco Bay shoreline and the views associated with the Bay. 4.2 Implementation of the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan in cooperation with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to secure a continued public access trail along the San Francisco Bay Frontage. 4.3 Preserve and enhance the natural amenities and features of the East of 101 Area including the views of the San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, and San Bruno Point Hill. 5. Design 5.1 Promote high quality site, architectural and landscape design that increases a sense of identity in the East of 101 Area. 5.2 Improve the streetscape quality of the East of 101 Area through plantings of street trees and provision of entry monuments. 5.3 Protect visually significant features of the East of 101 Area, including views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain. 5.4 Minimize the intrusion of unsightly elements such as unattractive signage, overhead utility lines, chain link fences, barbed wire, and unscreened loading and service areas in the East of 101 Area. 5.5 Promote public access to views of the San Francisco Bay and to the Bay Trail. 5.6 Improve the visual quality of the East of 101 Area as seen from Highway 101, and the visual experience of motorists on Highway 101 along the perimeter of the Area. B-3 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES 6. Noise 6.1 Encourage the development of land uses which will be compatible with the noise environment of the East of 101 Area. 6.2 Provide guidelines for noise attenuation for hotel and office uses in the East of 101 Area. 7. Geotechnical Safety 7.1 Minimize impacts associated will fill soils, landfills, and slopes. 7.2 Protect against hazards associated with earthquakes. 8.1 Provide for the protection of sensitive wildlife and plant species, and their habitats within the East of 101 Area. 8.2 Minimize indirect impacts to biological resources within the East of 101 Area. 9. Financing 9.1 Distribute costs of needed improvements fairly among the parcels that will benefit from them. 10. Implementation 10.1 Ensure that public improvements will be built as the need for them arises in the East of 101 Area. B. Land Use Element Policies Policy LU-1. Developments planned for the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated based on their merits and the net benefits they will provide to the East of 101 Area and the City of South San Francisco. Policy LU-2: New East of 101 Area developments should generally meet the following criteria: B-4 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES New land uses should enhance property values, thereby increasing property tax revenues in the East of 101 Area. As a guideline, costs of on-site improvements are encouraged to have a value ~:5'Ctw0 to four times that of the market value~~of .............. the~~land they are built on. New development should not have a net negative fiscal impact on the City, and should pay for all on- going City services it requires through taxes and fees. This is particularly important for projects with low property improvement values, such as storage yards and parking lots. • New land uses eke;:<~~#xa[~~`'~'x compatible with surrounding ~development~~a ;a€;~~.:t~s; should not be detrimental to the overall economic viability of the East of 101 Area. :::>:::::::::;;:::::::<:::;::;::>;<:>~:~?`:: ~nfi appz'~7val~ shc~u~d r~~~~ ~~rlt i~~~#t ........................... ........................... • New developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101 Area. • The trip generation of new land uses should be within the projections of the Area Plan. • The demand for sewage treatment for each individual development should remain within the projections of the Area Plan. Policy LU-3: All development in the East of 101 Area shall be consistent with the provisions of the land use categories illustrated in Figure 4 and described in Policies LU-4 through LU-10. Policy LU-4a. Uses allowed in the Planned Commercial category shall typically include hotels and motels, retail uses, office development, restaurants, administrative services, day care centers, business and professional services, convenience sales, financial services, personal and repair services, marinas, and shoreline-oriented recreation. B-5 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLIQES Policy LU-4b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Planned Commercial category is 0.60. Additional floor areax `'':ala€~:~`~i'r:.#~;. < ma be rmitted for ...~.t.,•. Y Pe ::;;R>t:::::::::::::'::i+.::::ss;::::::r::::'d:fx:::sG.':: ::~~'~~;+.:::y::5:::•::::•:::::}r:,.::•;`:,~.,::.•'~,.^,.:v. :':}Y::S!;::;: •: ~•p.~.~~• ~F3i~~tiiA~:::~ •~i~::~.••••.•'•.•y13~:R~i:~:~ •. i '• ..,y;~::'<i:4~:::pr7: .. ; . ~~ ~.. ~.:~:~:~:~.`•. ~ .. `,:~: ~ ~.....isisli,~i::2:::::.;::%~ki~'tY.~k?vKf11~' ~Q:~:c~ce.~.ash:`?.c'i~~~:.r~.~:~•...•.:~`,~~~~<~t# Policy LU-Sa. Uses allowed in the Planned Industrial category shall typically include non-nuisance light manufacturing, incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, offices, administrative activities, research and development facilities, "big-box" retail and warehouse sales, t'€•::_.~~a~">:;•>:.?Iq::. distributing c~tt';facilities ~sl~s; iz~:e'offices, service businesses that serve the••uses •described above, marinas, and shoreline- oriented recreation. Policy LU-Sb. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Planned Industrial sate o is ~~.~~...~<red~~~~•:•::.:":.:.":~~ B-6 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT `APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy LU-6a. Uses allowed in the Light Industrial category shall typically Policy LU-6b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Light Industrial category is ~SAQ.~>~~1 Policy LU-7a. Uses allowed in the Coastal Commercial category shall typically include business and professional services, administrative and business offices, convenience sales, restaurants, personal services, repair services, limited retail sales, hotel and motel uses with a coastal orientation, recreational facilities, and marinas. B-7 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy LU-7b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Coastal Commercial category is 0.60. Policy LU-8a. Uses allowed in the Gateway Specific Plan Area shall be those specified in the Gateway Specific Plan. Policy LU-8b. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio in the Gateway Specific Plan Area shall be that specified in the Gateway Specific Plan. Policy LU-9. Uses allowed in the Airport-Related category shall include uses consistent with the San Francisco International Airporti~s~~1 such as freight transportation and .. .::::.::..:..... customs brokerage firms, expansions of San Francisco International Airport itself, marinas and shoreline-oriented recreation. Policy LU-10. Uses allowed in the Open Space category shall include parks, vista points, pedestrian and bicycle trail corridors, fishing facilities, playing fields, recreational buildings, interpretive centers, marinas, and undeveloped open space. Policy LU-~~ Adequate transportation corridors to accommodate highway and rail transit shall be maintained. The City will consider redesignation of portions of the railway corridor not required for transportation purposes for development which is compatible with adjacent uses and does not generate significant adverse impacts. Policy LU-~3~~ No residential development shall occur in the East of 101 ....... Area. Policy LU-~y?~ The City shall track development for ~s-impacts on .:::::.. ~~f~~`€?'±`:~'€~1'~ `~>~~t~;~~~~~~i?t':~< roadwa and .:::::.::::.::.:::.:::.::.:::;::.:.>:.:::.:::::.:::.::.::.::.::::::.::: :..:...........:::~::.::.::.:::.:~:.:::.:::.:>::::.:::::>:::::. y sewage treatment capacity. Before the available capacities are used, the City will re-evaluate East of 101 Area land use categories, and may limit the future development of B-8 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES the area. , ~#t~~>'~~~~~~'~ roadwa~ ' ~` ' ~~~~t~~C#.~~# levels of ....... ......... .......>;:.;:~ Y :a;:.>:.;:.>:.::.;:.:;.;:.;;:.;:;::.>:.;:.:>: service and sewa a ~;:':€~t~~~t:'~i~~ ~~':.:;.:..:'.'; ca aci , g :.:::.~::::::::::.~ :::............................:g....l~.. P tY k~ reports to the City~~Council ~~~s once every two years. Policy LU-~4~ Maximum allowed Floor Area Ratios for the land use categories in Policies LU-4 through LU-7 shall apply only to new construction. Where existing buildings on a site exceed the allowed FAR, they may be replaced or remodeled with buildings up to the existing FAR on the site, provided that all new construction meets all other policies of this Plan and all other codes and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Policy LU-~5~i~ The City shall encourage development of campus settings and planned growth for multiple parcel developments and shall promote the development of facility "Master Plans" and design standards that meet the Area Plan's objectives. Master Plans shall include specific commitments to high quality design that meet the City's goals for a site. The minimum size for a Master Plan site is ZO acres. Policy LU~€ The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratios for the land use categories in Policies LU-4 through LU-7 may be exceeded through development of a "Master Plan", provided that the Planning Commission conducts aone-time review of the Master Plan and determines that sufficient roadway and infrastructure capacity exists to accommodate greater FARs at the facility. After such review, future developments at the facility can exceed the FARs allowed for the land use categories in Policies LU-4 through LU-7 without additional Planning Commission review as long as they are consistent with the Master Plan. Policy LUST Noxious industrial uses that emit odors or, large quantities of air pollutants, or are visually unattractive, shall not be B-9 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES allowed in the East of 101 Area. This restriction includes meat processing plants, above-ground flammable liquid storage, and other similar intensive industrial uses. Policy LU-~Z Uses that emit loud noise or create hazardous materials, water contaminants, or other pollutants shall only be allowed in the East of 101 Area after review by the Planning Commission, which must findE#~~i~:?fi~iii~€f' ~c<:~c~that a proposed use would include a easlble ~lga~ie>3-measures ~tlt~i~€sii~t~~i' .;:.;::.:.:.::.;:;.::::::.>: t~:;eand that the use would also have mitigating benefits such as employment creation or revenue generation. Policy LU-~3:~ Legally established auto salvage yards located in the East of 101 Area shall be permitted to remain but should not be allowed to expand in the area. All storage and loading activities shall be screened and landscaping provided adjacent to public rights-of--way. All other auto salvage yards shall be prohibited. Policy LU~~ Auto, truck, and equipment sales, rental lots, and storage Policy LU3~. Drive-thru and fast food restaurants may be in all portions Policy LU-~ Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established by the B-10 of the East of 101 Area ~p~~<~}:c~~parcels within 500 ................ ................ JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Airport Land Use Commission based on ~~~ ................... ?~~.:~~ .:,,:~ti~aPart 77 Criteria. Policy LU-2~-. Retail and personal services shall be encouraged throughout the area to serve the employees of the East of 101 Area. In the Light Industrial and Planned Industrial categories, dedicated retail space may be included in a development without being applied to the allowed FAR, provided that such development includes adequate parking and does not exceed 10 percent of the building square footage of a project. Policy LU~4€ In addition to encouraging retail services within the East of 101 Area, patrons will be encouraged to use the downtown. The City shall encourage programs that educate employees of the area and promote the use of the downtown as a commercial center. Policy LU-~S. €~t-Child care facilities may be built as part of a commercial or industrial development and shall not be counted as part of the Floor Area Ratio of the project. Policy LU-36 Intensive, transit-oriented development shall be encouraged within one-quarter mile of the ultimate location of the CalTrain station o~~>~fl~i~fu~i~~e S~at~r~. If the City Planning Commission finds that a project contains transit-oriented design features (as described in the Design Element), then the allowed FAR may be increased by up to 20 percent. Policy LU-2~~ The City shall protect buildings, sites, and land uses which are historically significant. Policy LU~~ Re-use of obsolete rail spur rights-of--way in the East of 101 Area to meet the goals of this Plan shall be encouraged. B-11 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES C, Circulation Element Policies Policy CIR-1. Level of Service D shall be the minimum acceptable operating standard for intersections in the East of 101 Area. Policy CIR-2. The City shall ensure that intersection levels of service do not drop below Level D by tracking existing levels of service, engaging in a program of necessary City traffic improvements, and requiring developments that would impact levels of service to provide for necessary traffic mitigation. Policy CIR-3. The City shall develop a program of roadway improvements that includes construction or financing of the roadway improvements to meet the requirements of development projected in the East of 101 Area. Policy CIR-4. Roadway improvements to serve East of 101 traffic that are needed in areas outside the Ciry of South San Francisco jurisdiction shall be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and jurisdictions. B-12 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy CIR-6. The City of South San Francisco shall install grade separated or rubberized railroad crossings wherever feasible as a part of roadway improvements in the East of 101 Area. Policy CIR-7. All new developments shall contain facilities to support transit, provided by both public and private means. Policy CIR-8. The City of South San Francisco and the employers of the area shall work with the Multi-City TSM Agencgx?€ ................... ~r~;;; :::::;:r1:>#~a :::::~tto~:;: ~~ne~~;~ ~t~s~to increase shuttle bus service and usage. Policy CIR-9. The City ~Ia11=~~dstudy the possible relocation of the CalTrain Station~~from its existing site to a location which serves pedestrians and bicyclists coming from the East of 101 Area and the rest of the City. Policy CIR-10. Sidewalks shall be provided along the roadway frontages of all new developments and pedestrian signals and crosswalks shall be considered for all newly signalized intersections. Policy CIR-11. The City shall develop a program of bicycle circulation improvements to create a full bicycle network consisting of Class II bike lanes on roadways and dedicated Class I bike paths. Policy CIR-12. The City shall include bicycle detection loops in all new traffic signals, and shall install detection loops at existing signalized intersections if feasible. Policy CIR-13. All new developments of 25,000 square feet or more ~ $~:~5~~r~~Fr and projected to accommodate 30 ........................................................... or more ~~~~#~tia'e.<;et~~.~ employees, ~Ia~-t~~t include showers,~locker rooms, and secure bicycle parking areas to support the use of bicycles. Policy CIR-14. Bicycle lanes and/or paths should be incorporated into roadway widening and new construction projects where feasible. B-13 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy CIR-15. The City of South San Francisco shall support transportation .demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) programs in coordination with the Multi-City Transportation System Management Agency~pi Policy CIR-16. For master planned developments, (as described under Policy LU-I-S), the City may allow flexible parking requirements or facility-wide parking standards based on the characteristics of the development. Policy CIR-17. The City shall develop a strategy to mitigate on-street parking problems in the East of 101 Area. Policy CIR-18. Loading areas shall be located so that truck loading and maneuvering does not disrupt traffic flow within a project site or along a public street. D. Public Facilities Element Policies Policy PF-1. The City shall allow development in the East of 101 Area only if adequate water supply to meet its needs can be provided in a timely manner. Policy PF-2. Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be installed as part of all new developments in the area. Policy PF-3. The City shall develop a program of sewage collection system improvements to reconstruct subsiding sewer lines, provide adequate pump station capacity, and make other necessary and feasible sewage collection system improvements in the East of 101 Area. Improvements shall be completed in a timely manner to meet demands created by new development. Policy PF-4. The City shall work with the City of San Bruno to ensure that the Wastewater Treatment Plant provides for development in the East of 101 Area, and the ~~s~e€-~~ ;~' .:.......::.....:.... ;>;:.;;:.;;: to the extent pessi~iw~si~. B-14 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES `€ti Capital Improvements Program ~:"~€~~~z ::::< .::.::.......::..:.:..:::.:.:............... ~' `;~~~?~ie~5`:'`. The Ci shall ....:~?.:::.::.~ ::::::::.::::::.~::::::::::.~::.~:::::::::.~::::::::::;:::.~::::::.:::::::: ty limit development approvals to those for which adequate sewage treatment capacity is available. Policy PF-5. The City of South San Francisco shall ~lgt~-~13~-tom ~ oo~ ~ oon y ........ :, :.. ~~.ri?~t~i~~~~~tiz~~~;eisa to determine the Wastewater Treatment~~Plant capacity. Policy PF-6. A sewage treatment plant expansion plan, including a schedule and funding program, shall be adopted by the City. Plant capacity expansion shall be completed prior to development that would require expanded treatment capacity. Policy PF-7. Projects in the East of 101 Area that would generate large quantities of wastewater shall be required to lower their wastewater treatment needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, gray water irrigation and similar programs where feasible. Policy PF-8. Specific development proposals in the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated individually to determine drainage ~ic'<'~"'tt~~~ re uirements. Policy PF-9. All development in the East of 101 Area shall comply with the NPDES discharge program. Developments over 5 acres in size shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the NPDES, which may require inclusion of permanent on-site treatment of stormwater from parking areas. Policy PF-~~~. During the rainy season, developers shall be required to place appropriate erosion control devices, such as silt fences, hay bales, etc. during construction activities to minimize the amount of silt directly entering the Bay or other wetlands. B-15 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLIQES Policy PF-~3 Utility companies shall be provided early noti5cation for any proposed project that could have an unusual requirement for ~~%s~€*_g , or telephone ';.':`::.::.;..::::.:`:: as, electric ............. services. E. #3#r~~.~rr~..':~`~t~i~ Recreation Element Policies Policy RE-1. Marina and shoreline-oriented uses shall be encouraged along the bay front. Policy RE-~. San Francisco Bay Trail improvements and trail improvements along all creeks and channels shall be required for new developments, other discretionary permits, and building renovations requiring building permits. Improvements shall be maintained in an appropriate manner by the land owner. Alternatively, applicants may be required to pay into a trust account to construct a trail on the opposite side of the creek. Policy RE-4. Developers in the East of 101 Area shall be required to either pay park in-lieu fees or dedicate park land based on a formula developed by the City which estimates the demand for park and recreational facilities generated by the expected employment of projects. Policy RE- The City shall work to provide recreational improvements in the East of 101 Area to meet the needs of Area employees and visitors, B-16 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES F. Design Element Policies Policy DE-1. Developments on parcels adjacent to San Francisco Bay should emphasize the bay shore atmosphere and take advantage of the design and visual opportunities associated with the bay. Policy DE-2. Projects in the vicinity of Highway 101 should be designed with the freeway in mind. In particular, any new projects on the Koll and Shearwater sites should be designed to be visually pleasing when viewed from Highway 101. Policy DE-3. As an edge of the East of 101 Area, Dubuque Avenue should have streetscape improvements to emphasize its visual importance. Policy DE-4. Developments built on sloping sites should incorporate the topography into their plans, rather than including significant grading to create flat development pads. Policy DE-5. Developments in the East of 101 Area should be designed to take advantage of views of San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill with its "Windchime". Wherever possible, open space areas should be designed to provide views of these areas, and any new roadways should be laid out to provide vistas of them as well. Policy DE-6. Within each development, a landmark building should be encouraged to mark the project approach for visitors coming to it. Such landmarks should not include signs. Policy DE-7. The principal roadway entries into the East of 101 Area should receive special attention and enhanced entry treatment, including special planting, signage and paving. A master plan of entry improvements should be developed by the City, with special attention on the following entries: • Oyster Point Boulevard. Treatments on Oyster Point Boulevard just east of the Highway 101 ramps could include monuments on the sides of the roadway and in the median, as well as enhanced landscaping. Grand Avenue Overpass. Urban design treatments could be applied to the Grand Avenue overpass to B-17 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES create a sense of entry to the East of 101 Area on this bridge. Such treatments might include new railings, bollards, or specially designed street lamps. Northern South Airport Boulevard at the Highway 101 overpass. Additional landscaping could be installed on both sides of South Airport Boulevard near Mitchell Avenue and the Colma Creek bridge. Colma Creek itself might be enhanced through plantings of riparian vegetation in this area. Southern South Airport Boulevard at the Interstate 380 overpass. Since the property on the east side of the street at the freeway overpass is currently vacant, significant landscaping and signage could be included in its eventual development. Wondercolor Ramps. This area is already landscaped, but could be improved by undergrounding smaller utility lines to ameliorate the "messy" character they currently create. Additional landscaping might also be installed at the new South San Francisco Conference Center. Policy DE-8. The City should prepare a streetscape plan for Oyster Point Boulevard that emphasizes the coastal orientation and high amenity of development in the northern portion of the East of 101 Area. Policy DE-9. The City should prepare a streetscape plan for East Grand Avenue to improve its design character and create a visual unification for the various uses in the East of 101 Area. Policy DE-10. The City should prepare a streetscape plan for South Airport Boulevard to improve its design character and create a visual unification for the Planned Commercial development that fronts on it. Policy DE-11. The City should prepare a streetscape plan for Forbes Avenue to reconfigure and relandscape the existing median to improve sight distances, accommodate traffic entering driveways, and improve aesthetics. B-18 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy DE-12. In order to encourage pedestrian use, appropriate street trees, plantings and sidewalks should be incorporated into the design of all public streets. Street furniture and accessories such as benches, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks should be incorporated, where appropriate, into the design of open spaces. All amenities should be selected and located so as not to impede pedestrian use of the sidewalks. Policy DE-13. New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping to meet the Ciry's specifications for their frontages. Streetscape planting, irrigation, and hardscape should be designed for minimum maintenance by City staff. Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low maintenance plants with automatic irrigation. ~~ Policy DE-14. Automobile entries should include special paving, signage and landscape treatments to announce arrival, as illustrated in Figure A. Policy DE-15. Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by separating parking areas into relatively small components and locating parking behind buildings whenever possible. The standard practice of placing the majority of the parking between the building and the main street frontage should be avoided when possible, as shown in Figure B. Policy DE-16. All loading and service areas shall be designed so that the maneuvering of vehicles can be accomplished on-site B-19 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES without special effort and without disrupting on-site circulation. Policy DE-17. In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks and service areas should be located at the rear or side of the development, and should be separated from automobile parking areas. Policy DE-18. Paths with durable, all-weather surfaces should be located in medians and other landscaped areas within parking lots to provide convenient pedestrian routes, and reduce wear on landscaped areas. Policy DE-19. Large parking lots should be designed so that pedestrians walk parallel to moving cars. This means that drive aisles should generally be perpendicular to the buildings in a center. Policy DE-20. Projects should be designed to minimize driveways and vehicular circulation areas, while maximizing outdoor public spaces. For example, owners of adjacent properties could develop shared facilities- such as driveways, pedestrian plazas and walkways. Policy DE-21. Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along property lines that is appropriate to the land use category, as shown in Figure A and specified in Section D of the Design Element. Policy DE-22. Developments in the Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial and Coastal Commercial categories should include on-site open space as a unifying element and as areas for employee use. Open space should be continuous and should connect separate buildings or sites, especially in campus-like developments, as shown in Figure B. Open spaces should particularly be located adjacent to lunch rooms and conference rooms. Policy DE-23. Open space should be located and designed with consideration for sun exposure and wind protection. Where possible, open space should offer seating areas with views of San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill. B-20 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy DE-24. Perimeter landscaping should be provided in the landscaped buffers required. in Policy DE-21, at a minimum rate of one tree for each 200 square feet of buffer area. Buffer areas should also be planted with low- growing flowering ground cover or shrubs. Policy DE-25. The design of front yard landscaped buffers should be integrated with that of adjacent sites. Policy DE-26. Berms are encouraged in landscape buffer areas, particularly along arterial streets. Berms should be no more than 3 feet tall. Policy DE-27. Parking lots should be shaded with trees, and should also include shrubs in most cases. Trees should be planted along parking lot edges and in planters among stalls. Design policies for the number of trees and amount in shrubbery in parking lots are contained in Section D of this Design Element for the individual land use categories. Policy DE-28. Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the design of the development. Policy DE-29. Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with, be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements. Policy DE-30. Utility lines serving new development shall be installed underground, unless the City finds that undergrounding would be financially infeasible for a specific project. Policy DE-31. As a first priority, the City shall study undergrounding utility lines along both sides of Dubuque Avenue between Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, and shall also study undergrounding on major thoroughfares in the area. Policy DE-32. No new off-site commercial advertising signs or billboards shall be permitted in the East of 101 Area. Existing B-21 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN TUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLIQES billboards may be replaced or relocated if the City finds that the change would improve the visual character of the area. Policy DE-33. The City shall work to remove all existing off-site commercial advertising signs and billboards from the East of 101 Area. Policy DE-34. All activities and stored materials in loading, service, storage and trash disposal areas should be screened from views from public streets, trails, ate-adjacent properties; berms and/or decorative walls. The screening should be integrated into the design of structures or the site landscaping, so it does not appear as an appendage added to the outside of the structure. This policy applies to all types of outdoor storage areas containing materials, supplies, or equipment, including autos, trucks and trailers. Policy DE-35. Storage facilities and waste transfer facilities shall be screened by solid fencing made of wood, masonry or other similar materials. The outside perimeter of the fencing shall be lined with vegetation that meets the requirements of Policy DE-36. Policy DE-36. Where shrubs or trees are used as part of screening, they should be selected and planted to provide solid linear coverage with intertwined branches to a height of six feet after two years of growth. Policy DE-37. The installation or replacement of exposed chain link fences, barbed wire, razor wire or similar material shall not be allowed in those parts of the East of 101 Area that are visible from public rights-of way, including roads and trails. Vii'`"~> ~ t't~ ~::c~:: ~ al~::1~~:~:e1s~ ~ ~ ;.~ttf Policy DE-38-.; All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be detailed and treated with relief elements B-22 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES and changes in plane. Architectural elements used to provide relief include awning projections, trellises, built in planters, integrated plazas, colonnades or :.:::: ~##..:...::.:.v..:::# :.v .;..:Sim ~_ ~':~V~az~~~~~Blank walls should~~be avoided. Section D of~this~Design Element specifies maximum acceptable distances of blank a~~~without architectural elements .............. .............. .............. .............. for each land use category. Policy DE-~9:~#~} Ground floor facades should have visually permeable building entries and shop frontages, and pedestrian oriented details such as recessed entries and overhanging awnings. Every building entry should provide shelter from the wind and rain. Policy DE-4t3:`~~ Building facades should be constructed of durable materials such as those already used in the area, including stucco, well-detailed tilt-up concrete or metal panels, and decorative masonry. Within a limited range, building surfaces should incorporate more than one material or texture. Highly reflective materials are discouraged. Building materials shall be chosen to weather the salt air in the area, and shall be apprev~dS>'~" by the Design Review Board ;::.~~.::"d~`~; t Additional policies for the Light Industrial and .................... ................... Coastal Commercial categories are included in Section D of this Design Element. ~::::.. :.... _." .~.>.:.. JE~ra~ Building colors may include earth tones and appropriate pastels. Bright colors and simple primary colors should be avoided, except as accents. Within a limited range, building surfaces should incorporate more than one color. Policy DE-43~ Retail, flex and industrial buildings should not exceed 35 feet in height. Landmark design elements should not exceed 50 feet in height. Office buildings are not subject to a height limit other than that of the ALUC, as outlined in Policy LU-3~ Additional restrictions on building B-23 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES height in the Coastal Commercial category are included in Section D of this Design Element. Exceptions to this policy may be made if warranted by a specific proposed use, or if taller building heights are included in an approved Master Plan. Policy DES: In most land use categories, sloped roofs and flat roofs behind parapet walls are acceptable. Bright colored or highly reflective roofs, including unpainted galvanized roofing, should be avoided. Additional policies regarding roofs in the Light Industrial and Coastal Commercial land use categories are included in Section D of this Design Element. Policy DE-44..~> Shopping and business center signage should be designed as an integral part of the overall center, and should be attached to buildings and other architectural elements wherever possible, as shown in Figure A. No sign should be taller than the building it serves. Policy DE-4`i~ Each center or development shall have a unified signage program for the entire development, which should be reviewed and approved by the City. Miscellaneous signage shall be designed into the sign program for each site such that is will be coordinated with the major signage for the site and the building. Policy DE-4'7 Shopping center or development identity should be denoted through signs or logos integrated into the design of the buildings, rather than through freestanding signs. Policy DE-4~1 Tenants within shopping and business centers should have signs that are integrated into the centers' signs, or which are mounted on buildings. For building mounting, individual letters are preferred, and unified "can" signs '`iil~b:r~rr~~ Lettering on buildings shall be individual~letters~painted or applied to the building or individually illuminated metal channel letters (a minimally sized raceway painted to match the building shall be permitted for internal illumination). No background shall be permitted other than the building material itself. B-24 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy DE-48~ Freesf~nding signs are discouraged, but may be installed as monument signs no more than 12 feet tall, as shown in Figure B on the previous page. Pole signs, as shown in Figure C on the previous page, and signs over 12 feet tall, are not allowed. Policy DE-4'~•5fl ..:.... Policy DE-~7 Directional and informational signage within a center should be designed in a consistent style that reflects the design character of the shopping or business center as a whole. Policy DE-~. Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral architectural elements such as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or low towers, as shown in Figure A. If screening from all significant public viewpoints is not possible due to changes in grade, then the equipment should also be enclosed in a housing that is compatible with the design of the main building. Policy DE-~3~ Mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the color of the roof where it is located. Policy DE-~3: The following additional design policies apply on the Koll and Shearwater properties. • Street trees. Street trees should be planted within at least 25 feet of one another. • Landscape Buffer. Landscape buffers along Oyster Point Boulevard and any new arterials should be 20 feet wide, and along other streets should be 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. • Blank Walls. Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-38. • Nodes. New development on the Koll and Shearwater sites should include nodes, social B-25 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES centers, and/or public plazas which take full advantage of social and recreational possibilities. Desigrl Guidelines. New development plans for the Koll and Shearwater sites ~1~~~i include specific design guidelines. These~~guidelines could be developed as an integral part of Specific or Master Plans for the properties. Parking Lot Trees. Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a row without a planting island that contains at least one tree. Policy DE~4 The following additional design policies apply in the 101 Frontage Area. Street Trees. Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each other. Dubuque Avenue should be specifically targeted for streetscape improvements due to its visual accessibility from Highway 101. Landscape Buffer. Landscape buffers along Dubuque Avenue should be 20 feet wide, and along other streets should be 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. Blank Walls. Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-38. Development along Dubuque Avenue should pay particular attention to the visual integrity of their development as seen from Highway 101. Parking Lot Trees. Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a row without a planting island that contains at least one tree. Parking Lot Shrubs. Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a parking lot ' B-26 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES ::~•:. Policy DE3~.~d The following additional design policies apply in Planned Industrial areas: • Street Trees. Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each other, and should be selected to match or complement the existing pines on Allerton Avenue and portions of East Grand Avenue. Landscape Buffer. Landscape buffers along major arterial streets should be at least 2A feet wide, and along other streets should be at least 10 feet wide. In the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes industrial park, they should match landscape buffers on adjacent properties. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. All landscaping shall provide a clear connection between the street and buildings for pedestrians. • Blank Walls. Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-35~. Pedestrian scale is of particular importance for campus-like developments and settings. • Building Orientation. Buildings should be oriented with a clear relationship to the street to create a sense of continuity along it. Inviting pedestrian linkages from individual buildings shall be provided. • Design Guidelines. New development plans for larger campus-like projects should include specific design guidelines, developed as an integral part of master planning efforts. • Parking Lot Trees. Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a row without a planting island that contains at least one tree. • Parking Lot Shrubs. Medians and bulbs inside the perimeters of a parking lot ' B-27 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES 135 ~:.:~~L><.:.iJ3~t`E ~'• ~ ...I`~Pti~~~h?~#~$~?~ ~~ ~I~1~ :::~f'~'~:>~I~:~~s~' ~.. ~ ~#JI`:::: Policy DE-~: The following additional design policies apply in Light Industrial areas: • Street Trees. Street trees should be planted within at least 50 feet of each other. • Landscape Buffer. Landscape buffers along streets should be six feet wide. No side or rear buffers are required. • Blank Walls. Blank building walls should be no more than 50 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE~3. • Parking Lot Landscaping. Adequate landscaping is encouraged in parking lots. • Building Materials. All types of building materials are acceptable in the Light Industrial category, provided they are designed with a relatively high level of quality. • Roof Materials. All roof materials and designs are acceptable in the Light Industrial category, provided they are designed with a relatively high level of quality. Policy DE-~ The following additional design policies apply in Coastal Commercial areas and in all categories that include Coastal Commercial as part of a mixed designation. • Street trees. Street trees should be planted within at least 30 feet of each other. Landscape Buffer. Landscape buffers along major arterial streets should be ~t~~ 20 feet wide, and along other streets should be :~~~~ 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines, they should be six feet wide. B-28 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Blank Walls. Blank building walls should be no more than 15 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE~~:~. Parking Lot Trees. Cars should not be parked more than eight in a row without a planting island that contains at least one tree. • Building Height. In order to preserve views, most buildings should not exceed 35 feet in height. Only landmark design elements may be taller, and should not exceed 50 feet in height. • Building Entries. Coastal commercial buildings should have frequent entries that are oriented toward the bay shore. • Roof Shape. Simple pitched roofs such as gables, hips or sheds are preferred over flat roofs. Gables or hips may also be integrated with flat roofs. • Building Materials. Building facades should be constructed of materials associated with coastal areas, including industrial metal siding and horizontal wooden siding. Highly reflective materials are discouraged. B-29 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Plant Materials. Plant materials in coastal commercial developments should be selected to fit within a coastal environment. • Preservation and Access. BCDC regulations regarding preservation of natural features and public access shall be followed as minimum standards for development in this area. Policy DE-~:~ The following additional design policies apply in Planned Commercial areas: • Street trees. Street Trees should be planted within at least 20 feet of each other. • Landscape Buffer. Landscape buffers along major arterial streets should be ~~~ 20 feet wide, and along other streets should~be~ax~i~a~t 10 feet wide. On side and rear property lines,they should be six feet wide. • Blank Walls. Blank building walls should be no more than 30 feet long. Longer lengths of wall should conform with Policy DE-35±x. • Parking; Lot Trees. Cars should not be parked more than twelve in a row without a planting island that contains at least one tree. ~7~M»j~~'Qb (~~!~.} ,~}~ '~,p sy~ ?giii O:piy; n:x :~^m{i:.,.f~jr:??i'.i:~:jvfT.ii ~}: niii:Yn7~}'!;}' is"•: ~:; Ai'X:til::y~'~. ~.~5!~V:is~}1:::~11~~~.H41::::~~l~R~::•}~.'?J~.ii:' ~' ':::~~lT~:::CYy!ti:i{:/~~~r.(.~}i:. {:: iiiii:}i::is::;:::i:;i:;i:;:;i:;i:;:;:Y::::iiiiiiiiiii:+yiyi}}i:iS•:iii:~i:ii:'iiiiiiiiiiiiii}}iiiiiii}i::::•:Tiiiiiiiti ..................... iiiii~.i:•>:•i:•;: iiii;;:.;i:<•i;:.i:•;:.;:~.;:.i:•i;:•>:•i:•ii;::•;:.::.i;i::•;:<.;:;<:<.:<.::•i:•i:•>:•;: Policy DE-Q The following additional design policies apply in Airport Related areas: • Street trees. z~ ~'i~t~~treet trees should be B-30 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES • Blank Walls. Blank building walls may be of any length required for the operations on a site, but should be kept to the minimum length necessary. Parking Lot Landscaping. Adequate landscaping is encouraged in parking lots. Policy DE-bbl~:~' All new development should have direct pedestrian access to transit services and be sited in a manner that promotes transit usage. Policy DE- As specified in Policy LU~S~, projects built within ~4 mile of the ultimate location~of the Caltrain station that comply with the following design guidelines are eligible for a density bonus: • All buildings should have direct pedestrian access to transit services and be sited in a manner which promotes transit usage. • Buildings should be sited so that pedestrians may walk directly from the rail station to primary building points of entry. A sketch showing this concept can be seen in Figure A. • Safe and convenient rail crossings should be established to allow pedestrians easy access between the rail station and work places. • The rail station should be considered a primary landmark in office development projects, and office buildings should generally be oriented around them. Towers or other vertical architectural elements should be constructed to mark the station as the heart of the district. • Plazas should be developed along paths to rail stations as rest areas and amenities for riders and visitors. Ground floor facades of buildings located along pedestrian routes should have visually permeable frontages and pedestrian oriented details such as recessed entries and overhanging awnings. B-31 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES • The edges of pedestrian pathways should be landscaped with corridors of shade trees and appropriate shrubs or groundcover. Policy DE-~ Fast food restaurants sa'i~ utilize quality materials and s~"<`,,~>ci':t rfi~;~~ up-scale impression and avoid ..............................................:.....:...:.::::::::. a typical "cookie cutter" or "corporate" appearance. Some alternatives for fast food restaurant design altd construction it include: .............. .............. • Architectural style in harmony with other quality architecture that surrounds it. • Use of natural colors as alternatives to bright or neon colors typical of fast food restaurants. • Use of quality building materials such as stucco, brick, stone and tiles as alternatives to more synthetic-looking products such as plastic and metal. • Building articulation and facade design which creates visual interest, including building plane variety. • Use of standard roof shapes and colors found in other parts of the East of 101 Area, rather than "iconic" roofs that are specific to a restaurant chain. • Minimal use of signage and maximum use of landscaping. • Avoidance of pole signs. G. Noise Element Policies Policy NO-1. Hotels in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so that the calculated single-event noise level due to an aircraft flyover does not exceed 55 dBA in hotel rooms, and the CNEL does not exceed 45 dBA. Policy NO-2. Office and retail developments in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so that the calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime does not exceed an L~q of B-32 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES 45 dBA, and instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA. Policy NO-3. Noise sensitive portions of industrial buildings shall meet the noise requirements for offices in Policy NO-2. H. Geotechnical Safety Element Policies Policy GEO-1. The City shall assess the need for geotechnical investigations on aproject-by-project. basis on sites in areas of fill shown on Figure 4~~, and shall require such investigations where needed. Policy GEO-2. Where fill remains under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. Policy GEO-3. Given the extensive use of the area for industrial and waste disposal purposes, investigation both by drilling and by examination of historic aerial photographs shall be conducted by project developers in all fill areas to determine if landfills exist under the site prior to construction. Policy GEO-4. Project developers shall design developments on landfills and dump sites to deal safely with gas produced by the decomposition of the buried garbage. Inorganic soil capping over landfills shall be thick enough that excavation for repair of existing utilities or installation of additional utilities does not penetrate to buried garbage. Policy GEO-5. If hazardous fill, such as garbage organics, is encountered, it shall be appropriately disposed by a project developer during construction. This material shall not be used for either structural fill or grading fill. However, other uses may be possible, such as landscaping around vegetation if the fill has a high organic content. If no acceptable use is B-33 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLIQES found on-site, the hazardous fill should be properly disposed off-site. Policy GEO-6. Where a landfill or dump occurs under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. Policy GEO-7. New slopes greater than 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if extending a level area at the toe of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration shall be checked for an adequate factor of safety by a geotechnical engineer. Policy GEO-8. The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a vegetative cover on the slope or by other means. Runoff from paved and other level areas at the top of the slope shall be directed away from the slope. Policy GEO-9. Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside . sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and grading should be kept to a minimum. Policy GEO-10. In fill areas mapped on Figure 4~`, a geotechnical investigation to determine the true nature of the subsurface materials and the possible effects of liquefaction shall be conducted by the project developer before development. Policy GEO-11. Development shall be required to mitigate the risk associated with liquefaction. Policy GEO-12. Structural design of buildings and infrastructure shall be conducted according to the Uniform Building Code and appropriate local codes of practice which specify B-34 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES procedures and details to reduce the effects of ground shaking on structures. I. sirv~ti~~ Element Policies .................................. Policy #1~-1. Prior to construction of development projects on sensitive resource lands, the City shall require an applicant to conduct a formal wetlands delineation at the project site. The results of the wetlands delineation shall be made available to evaluate project specific impacts associated with sensitive habitats. Policy i±fi-2. ............. .''iii ~' ~u~~'~ fat ~le~s~~ ~~n~~~?:<~ ~.~~.. ~~~ta1~~ ~~ >::>::>::>:<:»::»;::;>'~x:;<11., w~ atld t'egulattons Mega t~dlrtg. p-~r~~~c~~.~:~d ~.: ~r.~~tcif>~v~~~r) Policy 1-3. Slopes with native vegetation in the East of 101 Area shall ........: . be preserved and enhanced. Policy -4. The City shall .~li"iii s~~et~~~:~:~s.t~ an sensitive lant and~animal~~~~~~~~ ......... ....:.::;:;;:::<.:;::.;:;:;:.::.;:.; Y P species that occur in the East of 101 Area. Policy L-5. Prior to receiving approval for construction activities or other disturbances on undeveloped land in the East of 101 Area, project sponsors shall conduct focused surveys to B-35 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES evaluate the site-specific status of sensitive plant and animal species. Policy €~-6. If sensitive plant or animal species would be unavoidably affected by a proposed project, the City shall require the project developer to implement appropriate mitigation measures. Policy #R:€~T-7. New development adjacent to sensitive resource areas shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design: • Shield lights to reduce off-site glare. • Provide buffer areas of at least 100 feet between known sensitive resources and development area. • Landscape all on-site buffer areas with native vegetation to screen habitat areas from adjacent land uses. • Restrict entry to habitat areas through devises such as fencing, landscaping, or signage. • Ensure that run-off from development does not adversely affect the biotic values of adjacent wetlands or other habitat areas. J. Financing Element Policies Policy FIN-1. Costs of new infrastructure and public amenities shall be borne by both existing and future development. Policy FIN-2. Costs of new infrastructure and public amenities shall be distributed fairly among property owners based on the benefits received from the improvements. If property owners pay for improvements that will benefit properties other than their own, then the City will work to ensure reimbursement to these owners from other owners who benefit. Policy FIN-3. Any mechanism used to finance new East of 101 Area improvements shall avoid placing unreasonable cost burdens on individual property owners. B-36 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy FIN-4. Ongoing operating and maintenance costs for new East of 101 Area improvements shall be financed through ongoing revenues collected as fees, assessments and taxes generated by future development in the Area. Policy FIN-5. All development fees and assessments shall be structured so that they distribute costs equitably among various land uses, and do not serve as a disincentive to uses desired by the City. Policy FIN-6. The City shall develop specific financing programs for the improvements listed as more detail on these improvements becomes available but before the need for these improvements arises. K. Implementation Etement Policies Policy IM-1. Adoption of the East of 101 Area Plan represents a General Plan Amendment. The City of South San Francisco shall utilize the East of 101 Area Plan as the General Plan for the East of 101 Area, superseding all elements of the City General Plan except the Housing Element. The City's Housing Element, as amended by the City Council, will continue to be effective in the East of 101 Area. Policy IM-2. Amendments to this Area Plan shall be made only by following legally acceptable City procedures for General Plan Amendments. Policy IM-3. The Shearwater Specific Plan shall be superseded by the East of 101 Area Plan and is no longer in effect as a land use plan or caning designation. Preparation of a new Specific Plan, or a Master Plan as defined in this document, is encouraged prior to development of the Shearwater site. Policy IM-4. This Area Plan augments the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan. The policies of this Area Plan and the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan will both be effective in the Oyster Point Marina area. No conflicts between these two B-37 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES documents are known to exist, but if any are found, the Specific Plan will govern. Policy IM-5. The Gateway Specific Plan is not affected by the land use regulations of t~i~~l~er'~.stf€Area Plan. Developments on the~~Gateway~~site should conform to other policies of this plan, including the Design Guidelines in the Design Element, and shall be subjected to City design review. In the event of a conflict between this Area Plan and the Gateway Specific Plan, the '~:ti~ Specific Plan will prevail. Policy IM-6. New Specific Plans may be adopted for key sites within the Plan area as a means of implementing Plan goals, policies and land use categories. Specific Plans are required to contain all components specified in State law, except that they may incorporate elements of this Area Plan by reference, as appropriate. Policy IM-7. New Specific Plans adopted for properties in the East of 101 Area shall conform with this Area Plan. Specific Plans are intended to function as detailed implementation packages, and not as amendments to the Area Plan. Policy IM-8. The City will adopt new zoning implementing the land use categories of this Area Plan, and apply it throughout the Area. Policy IM-9. No discretionary review approval including a subdivision map, use permit, or design review permit, and no public improvement, shall be approved in the East of 101 Area until a finding has been made by the Ciry that the proposed project is in substantial compliance with this Area Plan. Policy IM-10. City staff shall review all construction projects requiring a building permit to ensure that they comply with the Design Guidelines and all other Area Plan provisions. Policy IM-11. City staff shall review all construction projects requiring a building permit to ascertain whether fees need to be collected, and shall collect necessary fees prior to issuance of building permits. B-38 JUNE 1994 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Policy IM-12. New public and private projects in the East of 101 Area shall undergo site-specific environmental analysis if required by the California Environmental Quality Act. To the extent legally permitted, such environmental analysis may rely on base areawide data and analysis contained in the environmental impact report for this Area Plan, as well as other relevant environmental review documents. Policy IM-13. Public infrastructure improvements should be implemented as soon as practical, but prior to major new development, in order to offset potential impacts to roadways, sewers, and other facilities and services. B-39 EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN JUNE 1994 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF AREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES B-40 Appendix C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM C-1 a a .. z n a a W a a. W W ~ ao Qa~ o j ~ o°'~ z ~z~ U H ... tiQ w w a~ a ..~ E .+ 0 .r W E+ A ~' ~ '~ ~ v O ~ v O d ~ ~ ~ . a i p. G. o~i O O O ~ O Q w y O Q w y p .". ~ ~ O. ~ O ~ O. ~ O O > 'fl 'U O ~ ~ O O~ p. «+ ~ ,~ F7 ~ .+ a o. a, a C~ .~ u y m ~ ~ °~ o0 as H ~ ~ a a ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ >~ W ~ ~ .~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ m Av a Ca ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ 8 Gci .~ ~ .y ~ .~ ~ .~ ~ .~ c,,., .~ ~ r0 .v f0 .v ~ .v ~ .v ~ ~, o~, o~, off, off„ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ 8.yv , pG U U U U ¢ >, ~ w ~ '~ '~ ~ ~ O :a ^' O x.53 U >, ~~ a~ ~dy ~°~ >,`" ~ O ea ~::: 8::.~ yo .off ~v ao„«,a o o:: E ~ :.; V1 :: ~ ~~ ~. moo 3 (A ~ 0 ~ QI e+ ~ G~ ~ y ~ y y H V ~ Y G7 •'• a~ oo-a • ~ + ~.5 ~ b Sy a~ >,~oya V ~ ~ w ca .C ~ •~ a~~~a i~ O ~ :i' ::: ~ i 'r: ~ y ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ O ~ O ~ ~ H . Q ~ h ~ 0 ~ ~ cC 'n ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~O v ~ d ed ~ ~ p .. ~ Q C W O ce O O Z Lys d •V ,C y N c , h q r„ ~ ~ «. a .o y ~, .~ v, ~ ~ o ~ A ~ o o ~ ~ ~ o o '~ ~ ~, ~ a ~ w~ . ., y ~ ~ '~ a Z w~'~a ~.~~ cv G°ay W ~~.5~ti~ ~ W s o a~ O o ~, o o ~ o ~, o ~ a ,c Q ~ .., a ~ y .+ 'fl ~ .~ C~ y c0 p ~ a - 0, U tUi q v~ v, ~ ~ O ~ .C~ ff ~ ~ ~ ~ d :~ H ~ d O o . O ri ao AS° ' ~ ': •= A.~ a N ~ Ago ~ O ~ ""';;a ~ A;~°>~°~' a ~ ti ~ E. ~ o„h a ~ ~ Z A ~ c. ~ 000.E o C ax ~ aS U~° v ~ U 5~o GU Z °~ GO x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . N U ~a 0 aW ~a Q ~ O O H~ w z 0 a_ W z w Ol .~ 0 a b ~: a a: :: a O ~Q 0 b d A a+ I.r W G{~ O 00 O Q 0 i.+ `~ U C`~ d ~o ~ ~o m ~ '0 en ~ do ~ p 0 ~ ~ a 0 ~ ~ a 0 ~ ~ 7 ,O ~ OD N • ~ O°D On ~ On U On V OD ~ ~ G C .O .O ~ .O ~ .O c ~ ~ O O e+D ~ ~ aD o v ono ~ on o ~ 0 O O O ~ A a U • N H Vl • f0 ~ yy ~ ~ ~ Gi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L d °' 'o, F 'a„ ~ 'a„ ~ as as as as m m on en m m eo ao s ~ ~~ c~~ ~a, ~~, ~ ~ ~ w w ~~ g ~~ g ~~ g ~~ g Q ~ Q ~+ Q ~+ w ,VJ o ~. w ,Vl 0 ~r w VJ 0 ~r w ,fA 0 d a,~, O v oy O ~c> ~y O U •~ ~ ~ •3 ~ ~ •3 ~ ~ •3 ~ ~ = w ~ w ~ w ~ ~ ~Uw ~ ~Uw w ~Uw ~ ~Uw w w w ~ ~ ~d ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ L' ~' ~' • ~v i •-~ ~~ =~v i 04 U U U ~ ~>, ~ tea, ~ tea, ~ ~~, ~ ~ t~7 y W y ~ C b ~ r 4~r y y ~ Q ° ?~~~ zd Oo ~ ~ ~ a~ .~:a ~ oyp v ~ ~ ~.~ a •~ Q a (]y ~ y' t o .~a ~ . ~i o W ~ ° ~ ~~:. U ~ M ^.3 ~y , G '^ 7 Qr U ~ y 0 ~ G7 U S> ~ •d d a o ] Fi b ~ 1 ~ Fi a 0 U • .a ~ ~ ~ i~r ~ ~ ~ yy '0 y ~ ~ b ^ Q « _ H U ~~Q O . ' ~ ~ U l0 L.i U ~ O ~ ~ ^ y ' U ~ ~ C ~ ~ e0 '0~'~ .~ C N ti O O i " 'v~ U QUA ~ ~ •Oi c~ O U 'v . O ~y , OD i ~ O~ O c.. ~ "ti ~ y ~ pQr °J . q ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ i. N fA C) ~ e~+ ~ p a ~ ~ f-i e e ~ W ~ .p b ~ ~ ~ i.. y ~.L .Vn f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~"' ~ 'O A a' ~ • ~ .~.. ~ ~ cU O Q . v ~ O O .r Q ~ O ~ y y .~ y ~ ~' i'~. O C' ~ ~ ' .~ d 'D ' 'a^, ~ 00 ~ ~ w ~ :; .~ '~O P. N -+ ~ N 'd .~ M~ 7 O w ~ +- .YC A : O v ~ o+ O y ~ ~, O ~ . ar'.+ U ,^} d 1 ~1 .tai ~ e 7 v~ ~ O ~ Vj ~ N ~ ' ~ ~ U ~ '~ .L~' ~ ~' W M ~ ~ V ~ M ~ N V W V o .~ ~ id ~"r ~i M c~ q c~ N . w c~ ,C a ~ w ~' ^y„ • A ~ ~ ~ ~ y wo O ~' 'O 'o ~ O ~' '~ w v, O y CL h .d , Vi Vi ~ . ~~' G' r ~ ~ ~ ~ 7f~. '0 ~ ' ~ ~ U ~ Q . '~' y N ' cC N~ ~.i ~ a •7 ~~ ~ a ~ ~ y V Q.~ ~ U Cd V fp ~ U p y. yd FBI ~ x ~ H A ~ 4i ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ CC ~ U Q~ .~y ~ H ~ 11.N ~~+ ^ l~' Z A ~ ;~ q O. ~ o ~ A ~ a .:y y c~i `~ ;r c+° ~~~, M °~ chi ~~~''MM ~ ° a ac a~+v ~"~ ag,r ~~i W Fi ~ U .° ~ O U cV r fi G) GTr ~ U ~ ~ e0 Q 'G ° ~ h e~ ~ N M U a a a d ~_ w z ~ O ~a o j O W H ~z w 0 a a w ~: v a a 0 w ay°i .••1 A w W t~ 0 a .~ 0 0 0 w e ~1 U H ~ '~ ~ '~ ~ e o ~~ o ~ a o a s e0 a a s .~ • . ~ b a i ~ ~ ,~ ~ awi a ~ a w a~i `~ aai `~ a[i ~ .~~ °w'~ a ~ ~ ~~ a ~~ a ~~ rs. ~ " O ,^°~ O^°~ O ,~°~ O ,~°~ o ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~R ~ ae,. ~ ~ a oa ~ ~ aa a ~ a '~ ~ ~ a~ a , ~ e~ a,ow.. Y Q, ~ mw ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ v ~ eon ~ rs,. v ~ eow ~ a, ~ o ~ sow ~ 8 T o0 0o c .5 ~ ~ '° '° c .5 ~ o .5 ~ .~ o .S ~ .~ ~ ~ . q ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 8 o q ~i 0 A A ~ o ~ o ~ P o R a A v A o, A o, A v w '~ y .a y .c y .G d '~ ~ '~ ~' '~ a ~ > a > a > a > a > a W '« c '~ ~ ~ ~ o '~ ~ c '~ '~ c '~ ~ o '~ ~ c '~ ar 3~,~ o'v ~~,~ ,~ 3 _ 3~~ ~~~ _ ,~ 3~ ~Uw r w ~ ~Uw y .:Uw .:Uw .:Uw , ~Uw ffi ~ w ~ ou" ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ a ¢ ~T ~ ¢ ~~ ¢ ~T Q ~~ Q A~ ¢ ~T ~ a 3 ., .~ a a ~o y ~~ °~'~ ~ ~ ii o C ~ . ~ :~ ~ ~ o .. w w ~ o ~+ ~ v ., ~ o w a a w N Q co w ~' ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p m G, v G :o ~ ed , ~ ~ ~ ,~., H co w it C y ~ OD ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ew+ w •r Q H L ~ ' ~ ° a x o ~ ~ `~° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wy'~ ~ ~ a¢ w a a~~ ~ as ;o '~ ~a~ i c a ~o:,~'~~~ ~o , ° ~ .. ~ ~ ~ o a ~ .~ «. ~ w a ~ O a ~ .. a C a, a, a C ~ w w 'o ,~ w O. ~,,, a, '~ .c O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ as ° ~ ~ c ~~ >~. c o.~° ~~ U o ~ «. ~'O aaw ~ '°~..~ :'tea w O O 0'~ O f31 ~ ~ w ~ ~+ 0 w w y '~ ^ lC f- O •n ea+ .~ U Op 5 ~ "' GO +-' C,' a~~,o A > a w~ N p ..yi o~ ~ O HI w .~.+ y ~ a ~~ 0 a+ w ' ~ ~ 3 ~', ~"'~ ~-'1 ° ~ o ° a Iw~l ~ ~ ~ Mw M ~ ..w.i ~ w Sri b ~ ~ .~ ~ y ~ O ~p ~ . A ~ ~ A~ V A ° ~ ~ Ao~ A ao ~ A o'~ ~ A o'~' ~ w ~- ~ ~ 'w A cHQ y ~ ° ' A .--i "~ , A w «, A ~ ~ ° ~ A ~ y Q w ~v Qw G7 UW ~ ~ U o h U ~~O U"~o 00 Uv~ v U .~ a a~ a .~ O v a~ .. ~Q w a :.. a L 6~ a i~.1 C7 b a~ .. d .~ A a~ W O a .~ Ir .O 0 RS .~ r~ U F~ _ ~ ~ a ac°i a ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ o c O ~ ~ r F M_ ~~ IQ~~y1 A Q~Q]] ~+ ~ ~I . s L d ~ ~ o. a o ;, ~ Q .~ ~ h C. y ; A ~ ~ ~ p u A ~ a ~~ w ~~ ~ ~ c ~~ e ~ U G4 ffi •~ ~ ~ OG ~a tea, .~ y a ~' -v a 0 H •O m N ~ o y ~ OD ~ .w'l. ~I I~ ~ A ~ Q r 0 O r ~-n it ^~ 0 W G N A ' ~ , U ~ i U