Draft CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A. Environmental Impact Report. [Draft and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Reports Previously Circulated]

Transcription

1 Draft CEQA Resolution - Exhibit A Environmental Impact Report [Draft and s Previously Circulated] 6

2 FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN State Clearinghouse # PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: City of South San Francisco Planning Division, Department of Economic Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California URS 1333 Broadway St, Suite 800 Oakland, California June

3 FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BRITANNIA COVE AT OYSTER POINT PRECISE PLAN State Clearinghouse # PREPARED FOR: City of South San Francisco Planning Division, Department of Economic Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California PREPARED BY: URS 1333 Broadway Street, Suite 800 Oakland, California June

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION...I-1 II. III. LIST OF COMMENTERS... II-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS... III-1 A. INTRODUCTION... III-1 B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR... III-1 IV. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR... IV-1 Precise Plan 9 Table of Contents Page i

5 This page intentionally left blank. Precise Plan 10 Table of Contents Page ii

6 I. INTRODUCTION In accordance with Section of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of South San Francisco (City), as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft Subsequent EIR) (State Clearinghouse No ) for the Precise Plan and has prepared responses to the comments received. The responses to the comments, which are included in this volume of the Draft Subsequent EIR, together with the Draft Subsequent EIR, comprise the Final Subsequent EIR for use by the City in their review of the Precise Plan. The Draft Subsequent EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period by the City of South San Francisco on April 19, The comment period on the Draft Subsequent EIR ended on June 3 rd, A Draft Subsequent EIR Public Review Meeting was held on May 16, 2013 at the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission for the purpose of soliciting comments. This Response to Comments document is organized into four sections: Section I Introduction Section II List of Commenters: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that commented on the Draft Subsequent EIR. Section III Responses to Comments: Includes a copy of all letters received and provides responses to comments included in those letters. These explain the Draft Subsequent EIR analysis, support the Draft Subsequent EIR conclusions, or provide information or corrections, as appropriate. For reading ease, this section is organized with the responses to each letter immediately following the letter. Section IV Revisions to the Draft Subsequent EIR: Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications, which have been incorporated into the text of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Section V - Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP): Outlines the program for monitoring and implementing the measure adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. I. Introduction 11 Page I-1

7 This page intentionally left blank. I. Introduction 12 Page I-2

8 II. LIST OF COMMENTERS WRITTEN COMMENTS The Draft Subsequent EIR comment period was from April 19 th, 2013 to June 3 rd, Comments were received from the following agencies and individuals: Table II-1 Comments Received on the Precise Plan Draft Subsequent EIR Author Code Public Agencies Date of Correspondence Commenter SFO May 3 rd, 2013 San Francisco International Airport C/CAG May 13 th City/County Association of Governments of San, 2013 Mateo County San Bruno May 21 st, 2013 City of San Bruno CSLC May 30 th, 2013 California State Lands Commission CALTRANS June 3 rd, 2013 Department of Transportation Private Entities HCP May 31 st, 2013 Jon Bergschneider, HCP Life Science Estates 13 II. List of Commenters Page II-1

9 This page intentionally left blank. 14 II. List of Commenters Page II-2

10 III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS A. INTRODUCTION This section contains responses to all written comments received on the Draft Subsequent EIR. The Lead Agency received six comment letters on the Draft Subsequent EIR during the 45-day public comment period. Each comment letter has been assigned an author code, and individual comments within the letter have been bracketed and numbered. The Draft Subsequent EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period by the City of South San Francisco on April 19 th, The comment period on the Draft Subsequent EIR ended on June 3 rd, The City provided the Draft Subsequent EIR on its website and in hardcopy format at the following places: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco Main Library 840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco, CA Grand Avenue Branch Library 306 Walnut Avenue South San Francisco, CA The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR including sending copies of the Draft Subsequent EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies and posting of a Notice of Availability for the Draft Subsequent EIR at the San Mateo County Clerk s Office with information on where to view the Draft Subsequent EIR and submit comments. Additionally, a Draft Subsequent EIR Public Review Meeting was held on May 16, 2013 at a City of South San Francisco Planning Commission meeting for the purpose of soliciting comments. No comments were received from the public at this meeting. B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The comment letters, oral comments, and responses are provided on the following pages. 15 III. Responses to Comments Page III-1

11 This page intentionally left blank. 16 III. Responses to Comments Page III-2

12 17

13 18

14 SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SFO) Response to SFO-1 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely confirms the proposed project description and the project s location within Airport Influence Area B. Further the comment acknowledges that the project is subject to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP) policies for noise compatibility, safety compatibility and airspace protection. Response to SFO-2 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and states that a preliminary airport land use compatibility analysis shows that the project would not pose incompatibilities with respect to airspace protection, noise or safety, similar with the Draft Subsequent EIR conclusions. Response to SFO-3 Building height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. This revision does not impact conclusions of Section IV.G-Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Therefore, Page IV.G-16 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Further, the project is not situated within a runway end zone, and proposed building heights would not penetrate critical airspace surfaces, which are at approximately feet above the project site. Response to SFO-4 Building height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. The building height revision will not impact conclusions in Section IV.I- Land Use. Therefore, Page IV.I-14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport allows The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan restricts building heights on the project site greater than 150 feet above ground level, up to the critical airspace surface height. to from feet above mean sea level. Response to SFO-5 Adoption of the ALUCP information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Page IV.J-8 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): 19 III. Responses to Comments Page III-5

15 Chapter V of the San Mateo County ALUC was updated in November 2012 by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, addressing specifically the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. Response to SFO-6 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and confirms that the FAA requires notification of construction of proposed project, similar with the Draft Subsequent EIR conclusions. Further the comment confirms that a Determination of No Hazards from the FAA should be obtained prior to project approval, similar with the Draft Subsequent EIR conclusions. 20 III. Responses to Comments Page III-6

16 21

17 22

18 CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY (C/CAG) Response to C/CAG-1 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely confirms the proposed project description and proposed project actions. Response to C/CAG-2 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely confirms the proposed project descriptions and the project s location within Airport Influence Area B. Further the comment acknowledges that the project is subject to ALUCP s policies for noise compatibility, safety compatibility and airspace protection. Response to C/CAG -3 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely states that the proposed project is subject to a formal SFO/ALUCP consistency review action. The City will coordinate with C/CAG staff on the timing of the ALUC/CCAG review of proposed land use policy actions. Response to C/CAG -4 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and states that a preliminary analysis of the proposed project found that the project is compatible with SFO/ALUCP policies related to noise, safety and height or structures/airspace protection. Response to C/CAG -5 Building height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Page IV.G-16 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Further, the project is not situated within a runway end zone, and proposed building heights would not penetrate critical airspace surfaces, which are at approximately feet above the project site. Response to C/CAG -6 Building height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Page IV.I-14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport allows The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan restricts building heights on the project site greater than 23 III. Responses to Comments Page III-9

19 150 feet above ground level, up to the critical airspace surface height. to from feet above mean sea level. Response to C/CAG -7 Adoption of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Page IV.J-8 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Chapter V of the San Mateo County ALUC was updated in November 2012 by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, addressing specifically the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. 24 III. Responses to Comments Page III-10

20 25

21 This page intentionally left blank. 26 III. Responses to Comments Page III-12

22 CITY OF SAN BRUNO Response to San Bruno-1 This letter acknowledges that the City of San Bruno received the Draft Subsequent EIR and that there would be no impacts on the City of San Bruno. No response is required. 27 III. Responses to Comments Page III-13

23 This page intentionally left blank. 28 III. Responses to Comments Page III-14

24 May 31, 2013 Billy Gross, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division, Department of Economic Development 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA Re: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Precise Plan - SCH# Dear Mr. Gross: Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the (BCOP) Precise Plan URS (Draft SEIR). We wish to commend staff and URS for the comprehensive analysis of the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Project (Project), and appreciate the time and effort you devoted to the environmental review process. In our review, we noted several minor comments and clarifications to the Draft SEIR for your consideration. We request that the City of South San Francisco (City) Planning Department and URS (SEIR consultant) revise the SEIR to incorporate the requested clarifications so that the Final SEIR reflects our comments as follows. Also please update, as appropriate, the Executive Summary to reflect the changes to the sections referenced below. Section III - Project Description 1. Page III-11: Table III-1 indicates that the Parking Structure is 8 stories and 78 feet in height. We request that the height of the Parking Structure be revised to indicate that it is 9 stories at 88.5 feet in height (to account for required grading adjustments at the lowest level) in order to be consistent with the applications on file with the Planning Department (see attachment). 2. Page III-14: Table III-3, Footnote 2, child care facilities are not proposed in Planning Area 1. Consistent with the Project Description, please delete reference to Planning Area 1 in the footnote and clarify the number of parking spaces as shown in the attachment. 3. Page III-16: Table III-4, Footnote 3, child care facilities are not proposed in Planning Area 1. Consistent with the Project Description, please delete reference to Planning Area 1 in the footnote and clarify the number of parking spaces as shown in the attachment. 4. Page III 14, Page III-19: Tables III 2 and III 4 - The total parking stated in Tables III 2 and III 4 is correctly stated as 2,670 spaces however, note #1 in both tables refers incorrectly to 4,242 spaces. 5. Page III-22: Under the description of the various agencies that have authority over the Project, the EIR lists the San Mateo County Flood Control District as having on-site approval 29

25 Billy Gross May 31, 2013 Page 2 of 5 for flood control. In our experience, the City, not the Flood Control District will review and approve on-site storm drainage improvements. Section IV. B Aesthetics 6. Page IV. B 23, Mitigation Measure IV. B-4.1: This mitigation measure indicates that No flood lights shall be utilized. For the permanent development this measure is fine, however HCP intends to use flood lights during some parts of construction. Section IV. C Air Quality 7. Page IV. C 23, Second Paragraph: Please delete the reference to the provision of child care in Phase Page IV.C. 27, 5 th bullet: The discussion regarding inputs to the CalEEMod appears to summarize parking at a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces/1,000 sf. To maintain consistency with the project description, we request that the description also reference the maximum parking ratio of 2.83 spaces/1,000 sf. Section IV.F Geology/Soils 9. Page IV. F-20: The Draft SEIR refers to the lowest floor being a structurally suspended concrete slab given the settlement anticipated by the Bay Mud. As further clarification regarding the proposed foundations, during the project planning, the lowest floors have assumed structural grade/edge beams connecting the pile caps in all situations. For the R&D buildings without podium parking and the Retail portion of the Parking Structure, suspended structural concrete slabs tied to the grade/edge beams is contemplated. For the Podium Parking and non-retail areas of the Parking Structure, asphalt in fill between the grade/edge beams is contemplated. The Project, however, may be designed to consider use of structural slabs for the lowest floor level, throughout. Section IV.G Hazards/ Hazardous Materials 10. Page IV.G-1.2 Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2: Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2 Inspect, Test and Remove Potentially Contaminated Soils and Groundwater provides that work would need to stop in areas where suspected hazardous materials are encountered and not proceed until after the Regional Board has approved the cleanup or mitigation work. This could introduce a long and unnecessary delay during construction. Investigation, cleanup and/or mitigation should be conducted in accordance with the updated Regional Board approved SMP prior to re-commencing work, and is not expected to need an additional review and approval from the Regional Board. It is anticipated that the SMP would address these issues so approvals during construction would not be needed from the Regional Board. The revised SMP will specify the notification/documentation requirements in the event that hazardous materials are encountered. Consequently, we recommend that mitigation measure IV.G-1.2 be revised as follows: During excavation at all construction areas during each phase of the project, the contractor shall inspect the exposed soil for visual evidence of contamination, particularly near the areas identified during site reconnaissance. If contamination 30

26 Billy Gross May 31, 2013 Page 3 of 5 indicators (e.g., obvious soil staining, odors, etc.) are encountered during excavation or grading activities outside of the lead or petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas, all work in the affected area shall stop and an investigation shall be designed and performed to verify the presence and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation shall be conducted in accordance with the revised Soil Management Plan. Results shall be reviewed and approved by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site clean up) before construction is allowed to begin again. The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and quantifying contaminant levels within the proposed excavation and surface disturbance areas. Subsurface investigation shall determine the appropriate worker protection and the hazardous material handling and disposal procedures. Areas with soil and groundwater determined to be hazardous waste outside of the lead and petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas shall be removed by personnel who have been trained through the OSHA-recommended 40-hour safety program (29 CFR ) with an approved plan for groundwater extraction, soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off-site transport or on-site treatment. Results of the investigation and all contaminated soil excavation, groundwater removal, disposal and/or mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the SMP. Results of this work will be documented and sent to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site cleanup). Section IV. H - Hydrology/Water Quality 11. Page IV. H-21 Impact IV.H-5: The last sentence of the third paragraph on this page should refer to the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 instead of reference to IV.H Page IV. H-24 Mitigation Measure IV.H-10.1: Impact IV.H-10 concludes that the proposed project would not expose people or structures in inundation by tsunami. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure IV.H-10.1 recommends that the project engineer submit data comparing the tsunami inundation zone to the project design. Since the tsunami map included in the SEIR does not provide elevation information and the program used to develop the inundation line is not commercially available, providing this comparison may be difficult. SSFMC Chapter refers to base flood elevations as determined by FEMA. As noted in Impact IV.H-8, the proposed project is not located with the FEMA flood zones identified in this Municipal Code section. Consequently, we request that the Tsunami Inundation Impact/ Mitigation Measure be revised to eliminate the requirement for further mapping and for the requirement that the project be required to provide flood proofing or raising of structural elevations because the project site is not located within the 100 year floodplain, and the information available in the SEIR does not appear to reflect current topographic data. Consequently, the information contained in the SEIR does not clearly demonstrate that the buildings would be subject to inundation, and we request that the mitigation measure be revised or deleted. 31

27 Billy Gross May 31, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Section IV. J. - Noise 13. Page IV. J-13, Second Paragraph: The Draft SEIR states that with a permit issued by the City Engineer, construction can occur between 8AM and 8PM (weekdays). Previously, the City has allowed construction to start at 7AM in South San Francisco which is consistent with the typical construction start on major commercial projects in the Bay Area. 14. Page IV. J-14, Last Paragraph: As described in the Project Description section, a child care facility is proposed in Planning Area 2. Please revise the first sentence of the last paragraph on this page to delete the following: and potentially a child care facility on the project site. Section IV. M Transportation and Circulation 15. Page IV.M -63 and 64; page M-70; page M-76 Mitigation Measure IV. M-3/M-5/M-10/M-14: These mitigation measures recommend that the applicant provide its fair share contribution to the intersection improvements. The required improvements, however, are included in the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program. Except for the requirement to adjust signal timing in M-10 and M-14a, the mitigation measures will be funded through the applicant s payment of the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program traffic impact fee. Consequently, these mitigation measures should be revised accordingly to reflect the fact that the applicant s payment of the traffic impact fee will fund its fair share contribution to the intersection improvements. 16. Page IV. M-65 to M-87 Mitigation Measures IV. M-8/M-9a-c/M-10a/M-14a-b/M-15/M-20/M- 21/M-22/M-23: Please confirm the methodology for calculating the amount of the fair share contribution toward the funding of the mitigation measures and the phases to which the fees would apply in order to satisfy the applicable Mitigation Measures. We request that the fair share payments shall be paid by the applicant prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of development. Utilities/Service Systems 17. Page IV.N - 10 Storm Drainage: The Draft SEIR states that there are no creeks or natural drainages in the project area. There is a natural drainage channel on the property that runs along the railroad tracks just outside of the Project site boundary. 18. Page IV. N-23 Impact IV.N-3: The second to the last and last sentences of this impact discussion should refer to Mitigation Measure IV.H-5.1 as opposed to Mitigation Measure IV.H Page IV. N-26 Impact IV.N-5: The last sentence of the first paragraph states that the sewer system includes gravity lines and force mains that combine both wastewater and storm water runoff. The City of South San Francisco has separate storm drain and sanitary sewer systems. 20. Page IV. N-27- Mitigation Measure IV.N-5.1 Wastewater Collection: The last sentence of the first paragraph states the applicant would be required to dedicate Pump Station #14 to the City of South San Francisco. This is not necessary as the City already owns and maintains this 32

28 Billy Gross May 31, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Pump Station. Also, the last sentence in the last paragraph of Mitigation Measure IV. N-2, the word not should be removed so the sentence reads correctly. 21. Page IV. N-26-27: Impact IV. N-5.1/5.2: The Mitigation Measure states Before project is connected to Pump Station #14 (and #2) the applicant shall pay fair share of improvement costs. In this case, because the City is responsible for the upgrades described, we would anticipate that the City would be responsible for completing the work in a timely manner so as to not delay HCP from completing the connections in time for building occupancy. We look forward to receiving the for the (BCOP) Precise Plan. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding our comments on the Draft SEIR. Sincerely yours, HCP LIFE SCIENCE ESTATES, INC. Jon Bergschneider AG/CT cc: Mike Swofford Scott Bohn Jeff Marcowitz Matt Concannon Alicia Guerra 33

29 This page intentionally left blank. 34 III. Responses to Comments Page III-20

30 HCP LIFE SCIENCE ESTATES (HCP) Response to HCP-1 Parking structure height and height information has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Table III-1 on Page III-11 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Phase Buildings FAR 1 (2016) Table III-1 Phasing Buildout Square Footage Floors Building Height (feet) B3 132, B4 120, Hotel (200 rooms) 126, Surface Parking 732 Total Phase , B1 102, (2017) B2 102, Retail 20,000 Parking Structure Surface Parking* 122 Total Phase , Total Phase 1 & 2 604,067 1,412 3 (2019) B5 137, B6 130, B7 158, Parking Structure ,300 Surface Parking* (459) Total Phase ,277 1,066 Total Phase 1, 2, & 3** ,030,344 2,478 Total Phase 1, 2, & 3*** ,030,344 2,670 Parking Spaces 225 (aggregate spaces-b5, B6, B7) Response to HCP-2 The comment incorrectly states Table III-3 includes this information, which is included in Table III-2. The existing footnote text for Table III-2 in the Draft Subsequent EIR refers to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and not the proposed project. For the 2000 Supplemental EIR it was assumed that the childcare facility would be developed in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3; therefore changes are not necessary to be made to the Draft Subsequent EIR text.. 35 III. Responses to Comments Page III-21

31 Response to HCP-3 The existing footnote text in the Draft Subsequent EIR refers to the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project and not the proposed project. For the 2000 Supplemental EIR it was assumed that the childcare facility would be developed in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3; therefore changes are not necessary to be made to the Draft Subsequent EIR text. Response to HCP-4 Parking counts in Table III-2 and Table III-4 for Britannia Oyster Point and Britannia Cove at Oyster Point have been revised to reflect the changes described in the comment. Therefore, Tables III-2 and III- 3 on Page III-14 and III-19 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): 36 III. Responses to Comments Page III-22

32 Table III-2 Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I (project site) Use Building Area (sf) Site Area (sf) Precise Plan (proposed project) R&D/Office 884,344 FAR Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Parking Stalls ,503 Hotel w/restaurant 126,000 1/room Retail 20, Total 1,030, , , Bay West Cove Commercial Project R&D 620, ,698 Hotel 296, Retail 10, Restaurant 10, Child Care (100 children minimum) 2 Total 916, , , Bay West Cove Commercial Project Auto Display Showroom 23,866 N/A Service/Reception 24,570 N/A Car Wash 1,716 N/A Customer Parking N/A 280 Service and Handicap Parking N/A 82 Additional Parking N/A 1,459 Total 3 50, ,344 N/A 1, of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D buildings and area also included in total R&D parking count of 4,242, 2,503 above. 2 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was assumed it would be part of office/r&d square footage in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3. 3 The remaining square footage of the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area 1 would be covered with car display lots. 37 III. Responses to Comments Page III-23

33 Table III-4 Britannia Oyster Point and Development Statistics Response to HCP-5 Use Building Area (sf) Site Area (sf) FAR (proposed project) R&D/Office 884,344 Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Parking Stalls ,503 Hotel w/restaurant 126,000 1/room Retail 20, Total 1,030, , ,670 Britannia Oyster Point (Planning Areas 2 and 3) R&D 560, ,739 Retail (required under 10, current entitlements) 2 Restaurant (required 0 0 under current entitlements) 3 Child Care 2 8, Total 578, , ,763 Britannia Oyster Point and R&D/Office 1,445, ,242 Retail 20, Hotel 126, Child Care 3 8, Total 1,599,169 1,848, , of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D buildings and area also included in total R&D parking count of 4,242, 2,503 above. 2 Retail and restaurant requirements for Britannia Oyster Point have been subsumed into the proposed development plan. 3 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was assumed it would be part of office/r&d square footage in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3. The list of responsible agencies for onsite approvals has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Page III-22 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Ensure compliance with all traffic related standards relative to state highways Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Ensure that all applicable federal and state air quality standards are achieved and maintained. 38 III. Responses to Comments Page III-24

34 San Mateo County Flood Control District Design approval for on-site flood control. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health Ensure compliance with regulations related to Hazardous Materials Business Plans. Federal Aviation Administration Establish height limits and noise contours relative to the operation of the San Francisco International Airport. Response to HCP-6 Mitigation Measure IV.B-4.1 in Section IV.B Aesthetics has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Pages IV.B-23 and Page II-6 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): No flood lights shall be utilized Flood lights shall be used during construction phases only as necessary, therefore impacts would be short term and temporary. Flood lights shall not be used during project operation. Response to HCP-7 Childcare center phasing has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. These changes do not impact Section IV.C conclusions. Therefore, Page IV.C-23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): A child care center that would serve employees of both the proposed project and the Britannia Oyster Point 1 project area would be constructed either late in Phase 1 or during Phase 2. This analysis conservatively assumes the child care center is completed as part of Phase 1. Response to HCP-8 Parking ratio in the methodology section of Section IV.C-Air Quality has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. The revision of available parking spaces was entered for completeness and to gather the total acreage that is needed to estimate construction emissions. Since total acreage would not change the estimated construction equipment list and schedule would not change. Thus emissions would not change and the CalEEMod model does not need to be revised. Therefore, Page IV.C- 27 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Land Use for Phase 1 would include 252,593 square feet of office/r&d space, a 200 room hotel, and 792 parking spaces. Phase 2 would include 205,474 square feet of office/r&d space, 20,000 square feet of retail, 122 additional surface parking spaces, and 498 parking spaces in a parking structure. Phase 3 would include 426,277 square feet of office/r&d space, a reduction of 459 surface parking spaces, 225 podium parking spaces and 1,300 additional parking spaces in a parking structure. At build-out the project would include 884,344 square feet of office/r&d space, a 200 room hotel, 20,000 square feet of retail, 39 III. Responses to Comments Page III-25

35 395 surface parking spaces, 285 podium parking spaces and parking spaces in a parking structure. Response to HCP-9 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR it merely clarifies construction measures for building on potentially unstable soil like Bay Mud, which is present on the project site. Response to HCP-10 Mitigation Measure IV.G-12 in Section IV.G-Hazards has been revised to reflect the comment in the letter. As the comment indicates the approved SMP by the Regional Board would address potentially encountering contaminated soil during construction actions. The change in the mitigation measure would ensure that construction would be conducted in a timely manner and that unnecessary delays would not take place. Therefore, Pages IV.G-12 and II-16 and -17 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2 Inspect, Test and Remove Potentially Contaminated Soils and Groundwater During excavation at all construction areas during each phase of the project, the contractor shall inspect the exposed soil for visual evidence of contamination, particularly near the areas identified during site reconnaissance. If contamination indicators (e.g., obvious soil staining, odors, etc.) are encountered during excavation or grading activities outside of the lead or petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas, all work in the affected area shall stop and an investigation shall be designed and performed to verify the presence and extent of contamination at the site. Results shall be reviewed and approved by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site clean up) before construction is allowed to begin again. The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and quantifying contaminant levels within the proposed excavation and surface disturbance areas. Subsurface investigation shall determine the appropriate worker protection and the hazardous material handling and disposal procedures. Areas with soil and groundwater determined to be hazardous waste outside of the lead and petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas shall be removed by personnel who have been trained through the OSHArecommended 40-hour safety program (29 CFR ) with an approved plan for groundwater extraction, soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off-site transport or on-site treatment. Results of the investigation and all contaminated soil excavation, groundwater removal, disposal and/or mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the SMP. Results of this work will be documented and sent to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site cleanup). 40 III. Responses to Comments Page III-26

36 Response to HCP-11 The last sentence in the third paragraph on page IV.H-21 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Page IV.H-21 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): If, however, the projected project runoff would be greater than the current capacity of the existing City storm line serving the project site, the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.H would be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Response to HCP-12 The comment incorrectly states that the Draft Subsequent EIR includes a map of tsunami impact area on the project site. The map referenced on Page IV.H-5 and in the Impact IV.H-10 discussion was obtained from the ABAG website and was not included in the Draft Subsequent EIR. The City of South San Francisco will work with the applicant to determine mapping needs for the tsunami zone and to acquire necessary data. Response to HCP-13 Per City of South San Francisco noise permitting standards page IV.J-14 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. An Exception Permit Application from the City of South San Francisco is necessary to extend construction hours for commercial hours. Therefore, Page IV.J-14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): The noise level standards of the South San Francisco Municipal Code are not applied to construction activities because of a Special Provision that allows construction activities between 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. An Exception Permit would allow construction activities to extend beyond the noise provisions of the City of South San Francisco. The permit would be obtained from the City of South San Francisco and approved by the City Engineer. Response to HCP-14 The last paragraph on page IV.J-15 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Pages IV.J-15 and II-30, -32, and -34 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Development of Phase 1, which would include the construction of Buildings B3, B4, and the hotel, and potentially a child care facility on the project site, would have the potential to impact existing buildings located offsite adjacent to the project site. 41 III. Responses to Comments Page III-27

37 Response to HCP- 15 The applicant s payment of the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee will fund the Project s fair share contribution to the intersection improvements for Impacts IV.M-3, IV.M-5, IV.M-10 and IV.M-14. Therefore, edits have been made to traffic mitigations IV.M-3, IV.M-5, IV.M-10 and IV.M-14 in Section IV.M-Transportation and Traffic (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline). Mitigation Measure IV.M-3 The applicant shall be responsible for providing provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City s East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project s fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following mitigations. Mitigation Measure IV.M-5 The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City s East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project s fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for a second offramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive. The fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. This measure is included in the City s East of 101 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mitigation Measure IV.M-10: The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City s East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project s fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements as shown in Figure 24, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Mitigation Measure IV.M-14 The applicant shall be responsible for providing provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City s East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the Project s fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements, which are described below and shown in Table 23 and Figure IV.M-25. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. 42 III. Responses to Comments Page III-28

38 Response to HCP-16 The improvements listed in the applicant s comment are not included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will not be funded via the Project s traffic impact fee for this program. The applicant will be responsible for implementation of the improvements. Therefore, edits have been made to traffic mitigations IV.M-8, IV.M-9, IV.M-10, IV.M-14, and IV.M-15 in Section IV.M-Transportation and Traffic, and Pages II-31 through -37 (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline). Mitigation Measure IV.M-8 The applicant shall be responsible provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for providing the following improvement as shown in Table IV.M-22 and Figure IV.M-24, Year 2017 Mitigated Lane Geometrics and Control, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. Mitigation Measure IV.M-9 9a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. 9b. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. 9c. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. Mitigation Measure IV.M-10 Adjust signal timing and provide right turn overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard right turn. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. 43 III. Responses to Comments Page III-29

39 Mitigation Measure IV.M-14 14a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of the development. 14b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Provide overlap signal phasing for the southbound Veterans Boulevard right turn lanes. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of the development. Mitigation Measure IV.M-15 15a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Flyover Off-Ramp/Project Access Adjust signal timing. The signal time will be adjusted to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of development. 15b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of development. Response to HCP-17 The storm drainage information on page IV.N-10 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. The changes do not impact the conclusions regarding storm drainage patterns on the project site or recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, Page IV.J-15 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): There are no creeks in the project area, and one natural drainage channel runs along the railroad track just outside the project site. or natural surface drainages in the project area. Response to HCP-18 The last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.N-3 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. This change does not impact the mitigation measure requirements or conclusions of Section IV.N- Utilities. Therefore, Pages IV.N-23 and 42 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): 44 III. Responses to Comments Page III-30

40 Mitigation Measure IV.H replaces mitigation measures imposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. Response to HCP-19 The first paragraph in Impact IV.N-5 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. This change does not impact the mitigation measure requirements or conclusions of Section IV.N- Utilities. Therefore, Page IV.N-26 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Wastewater from Cal Water s South San Francisco service area communities of South San Francisco and Colma is treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP. The sewer system includes gravity lines and force mains that combine both wastewater and storm water runoff. The City of South San Francisco has separate storm drain and sanitary sewer system. Response to HCP- 20 Mitigation Measure IV.N-5.1 has been revised to reflect the changes described in the letter. This change does not impact the mitigation measure requirements or conclusions of Section IV.N- Utilities. Therefore, Pages IV.N-27 and II-43 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Mitigation Measure IV.N-5.1 Wastewater Collection Before the proposed project is connected to the City's wastewater collection system, the City shall upgrade and improve Pump Station #14, in accordance with the 2012 SSMP. The project applicant shall pay its fair share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works Department, in accordance with General Plan policies and based on the project s contribution to wastewater flows. In addition, the project applicant would be required to dedicate Pump Station #14 to the City of South San Francisco. Response to HCP- 21 This comment refers to Mitigation Measure IV.N 5.1 and 5.2 regarding pump station improvements. The project applicant requests that all pump station improvements that the City would be responsible for to be done in a timely manner as to avoid project delays. The City will work with the applicant on an acceptable time table for pump improvements. 45 III. Responses to Comments Page III-31

41 This page intentionally left blank. 46 III. Responses to Comments Page III-32

42 City of South San Francisco April 2013 would require from approximately 21 to 24 months for design and construction. The project would require the use of pile driving equipment during construction. Impervious surfaces and landscaping would constitute approximately 632,000 and 242,000 square feet, respectively, for a total development of 1,030,344 square feet on the site. Table III-1 Phasing Buildout Building Phase Buildings FAR Square Footage Floors Height (feet) Parking Spaces 1 B3 132, (2016) B4 120, Hotel (200 rooms) 126, Surface Parking 732 Total Phase , B1 102, (2017) B2 102, Retail 20,000 Parking Structure Surface Parking* 122 Total Phase , Total Phase 1 & 2 604,067 1,412 3 B5 137, (2019) B6 130, (aggregate spaces-b5, B6, B7 158, B7) Parking Structure ,300 Surface Parking* (459) Total Phase ,277 1,066 Total Phase 1, 2, & 3** ,030,344 2,478 Total Phase 1, 2, & 3*** ,030,344 2,670 *Reconfigured **Ratio at 2.5/1000 for R&D, Podium parking 285 spaces, Parking Structure 1,798 spaces, Surface Parking 395 spaces ***Ratio at 2.83/1000 for R&D, Parking Structure 1,990 spaces Source: DES Architects,, Design Guideline Submittal, and February 20, Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 47 III. Project Description Page III-11

43 City of South San Francisco April 2013 Table III-2 Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I (project site) Parking Use Building Area (sf) Site Area (sf) FAR Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Parking Stalls Precise Plan (proposed project) R&D/Office 884, ,503 Hotel w/restaurant 126,000 1/room Retail 20, Total 1,030, , , Bay West Cove Commercial Project R&D 620, ,698 Hotel 296, Retail 10, Restaurant 10, Child Care (100 children minimum) 2 Total 916, , , Bay West Cove Commercial Project Auto Display Showroom 23,866 N/A Service/Reception 24,570 N/A Car Wash 1,716 N/A Customer Parking N/A 280 Service and Handicap Parking N/A 82 Additional Parking N/A 1,459 Total 3 50, ,344 N/A 1, of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D buildings and area also included in total R&D parking count of 4,242, above. 2 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was assumed it would be part of office/r&d square footage in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3. 3 The remaining square footage of the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area 1 would be covered with car display lots. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 48 III. Project Description Page III-14

44 City of South San Francisco April 2013 Landscaping on the project site would emphasize a natural and informal landscape using simple plant materials combined in consideration of form, color, and texture. Plants would be chosen considering the climate of South San Francisco in the East of 101 area and would be combined with variations in landform and circulation routes to create a series of wind-protected spaces rather than being large expanses of open spaces. Landscaping plants would vary, but could include Afghan Pine, Cajeput Tree, European Hornbeam, Lombardy Popular, New Zealand Christmas Tree, Purple Leaf Plum, Purple Leaf Acacia, Ornamental Pear, Red Flowering Gum, Red Maple, Small Leaf Tristania, and Timber Bamboo. Preliminary landscape and site materials are shown in Appendix B. Table III-4 Britannia Oyster Point and Development Statistics Use Building Area (sf) Site Area (sf) FAR Parking Ratio (per 1,000 sf) Parking Stalls (proposed project) R&D/Office 884, ,503 Hotel w/restaurant 126,000 1/room Retail 20, Total 1,030, , ,670 Britannia Oyster Point (Planning Areas 2 and 3) R&D 560, ,739 Retail (required under 10, current entitlements) 2 Restaurant (required 0 0 under current entitlements) 3 Child Care 2 8, Total 578, , ,763 Britannia Oyster Point and R&D/Office 1,445, ,242 Retail 20, Hotel 126, Child Care 3 8, Total 1,599,169 1,848, , of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D buildings and area also included in total R&D parking count of 4,242, above. 2 Retail and restaurant requirements for Britannia Oyster Point have been subsumed into the proposed development plan. 3 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was assumed it would be part of office/r&d square footage in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 49 III. Project Description Page III-16

45 City of South San Francisco April 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project site is approximately 20.1 acres in size. The site is currently vacant and unpaved, with the exception of a City-owned sanitary sewer pump located in the northern portion of the site. The project site is bounded by Oyster Point Boulevard to the south, the Caltrain railroad tracks to the west, Veterans Boulevard and the San Francisco Bay to the north, and commercial properties and laboratories to the east. This analysis assumes the project would be constructed in three phases. Phase 1 would consist of two office buildings, the hotel, associated surface parking, project site roadways, site utilities, lighting, and landscaping, and would be constructed by A child care center that would serve employees of both the proposed project and the Britannia Oyster Point 1 project area would be constructed either late in Phase 1 or in Phase 2. This analysis conservatively assumes the child care center is completed as part of Phase 1. Phase 2 would include two additional office buildings, a 3-story parking structure, a restaurant, retail space, and site utilities, lighting, and landscaping, and is assumed to be constructed by Phase 2 would also reconfigure surface parking on the site. In Phase 3, the project would consist of three additional office buildings, expand the parking structure from 3-story to 8 or 9-story, install additional site utilities/landscaping/lighting, and reconfigure surface parking on the site. Phase 3 is assumed to be constructed by Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2013 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to air quality if the proposed project would result in any of the following: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors such as ROGs and NOX). Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 50 IV.C. Air Quality Page IV.C-23

46 City of South San Francisco April 2013 Methodology Construction Emissions Emissions for the construction of the project were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version CalEEMod is a statewide land use project emissions model designed as a uniform platform to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of land uses, such as residential and commercial facilities. CalEEMod utilizes basic land use information to estimate default construction equipment and mobile source trips and lengths. The construction emissions were calculated using 3 different CalEEMod runs to estimate the emissions from each Project Phase (1-3). The following conservative inputs into the model were utilized: Location is San Francisco Air Basin. Project year is 2017 for Phase 1 and 2035 for Buildout. Climate Zone is 5. Utility is Pacific Gas & Electric. Land Use for Phase 1 would include 252,593 square feet of office/r&d space, a 200 room hotel, and 792 parking spaces. Phase 2 would include 205,474 square feet of office/r&d space, 20,000 square feet of retail, 122 additional surface parking spaces, and 498 parking spaces in a parking structure. Phase 3 would include426,277 square feet of office/r&d space, a reduction of 459 surface parking spaces, 225 podium parking spaces and 1,300 additional parking spaces in a parking structure. At build-out the project would include884,344 square feet of office/r&d space, a 200 room hotel, 20,000 square feet of retail, 395 surface parking spaces, 285 podium parking spaces and 1798 parking spaces in a parking structure. Construction phases are shown in Table IV.C-7. Start date for Phase 1 was assumed to conservatively be 1/1/2014, Phase 2 start date was 1/1/2015, and Phase 3 start date was 1/1/2016. Off-road equipment is shown in Table IV.C-8. Amount of material hauled off-site was assumed to be zero. The default trip lengths for worker (12.4 miles) and vendor (7.3 miles) was used. Default number of worker vehicle commuting trips was assumed. Default horsepower for construction equipment was utilized. Load factors (ratio of the average engine load compared to the maximum rated load) were modified to reflect current load factors recommended by ARB which is a 33% reduction from the model defaults. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 51 IV.C. Air Quality Page IV.C-27

47 City of South San Francisco April 2013 Handicap Accessible Parking: Designated accessible parking spaces and signs shall be provided to meet current CA Administrative Code regulations, Title 24, Part 2. In addition one in every eight handicap accessible stalls required must meet van access standards. Shoreline Access Parking: Parking spaces required for public shoreline access shall be convenient to the shoreline and shall be properly and clearly marked and posted per the California Vehicle Code. Loading and Service Areas: o o o o o o o o o o All loading facilities and maneuvering areas shall be located on the same site as the use it serves. Loading and unloading shall only be permitted in the rear or side yard areas and shall not face the Bay or be visible from any public streets. Aisle widths adjacent to loading docks shall have a minimum width of 30 feet. Loading docks shall be set back a minimum distance of 60 feet from the northerly rightof-way line of Veterans Boulevard. Loading facilities shall be adequately screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner through the use of screen walls and landscaping. Minimum aisle width adjacent to loading areas, without high dock doors, shall be 16 feet for one-way traffic and 28 feet for two-way traffic. Provisions shall be made on each site for necessary vehicle loading. On-street vehicle loading is prohibited. No street parking, staging or maneuvering of delivery trucks shall be permitted in order to access loading docks unless within designated truck maneuvering areas. Truck dock and loading zones are subject to individual evaluation by the City Public Works Department. Truck docks or loading areas shall not face San Francisco Bay. Transportation Demand Management (Chapter ): General Requirements Planning Areas 1a, 1b, 2 and Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Project sponsors shall implement a TDM plan to reduce vehicular trips, and shall be required to achieve a minimum 35 percent alternative mode use by tenant employees. 2. TDM Monitoring Report. The project sponsors shall prepare an annual TDM report to document a minimum 35 percent alternative mode usage as identified in the Bay West Cove Supplemental EIR. Transportation Demand Management Program (Chapter ) The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 52 IV.I. Land Use and Planning Page IV.I-13

48 City of South San Francisco April 2013 Roadway Between Driveway a and Oyster Point Boulevard Source: URS Corporation 2013 Note: 1 - Noise levels are rounded to the nearest one tenths Table IV.J-6 Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project CNEL at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline, dba Existing Existing + Project Increase Impact IV.J-4: The proposed project would result in substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Offsite Impacts Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would temporarily increase during the project-related construction activities on the project site. These activities would include the construction of one 8-level parking structure, seven new commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel. The project would be constructed in three phases and it is assumed that Phase 1 would be constructed by 2016, Phase 2 by 2017, and Phase 3 by Since the construction would be phased, there is the potential for construction noise to affect the buildings neighboring the project site as well as the occupied buildings on the project site (newly constructed project buildings). There are no foreseen off-site construction activities such as road improvements or installation of utilities that would contribute to a secondary noise impact. The noisiest construction activities would be conducted during the initial phases of construction for Phases 1, 2, and 3. These construction activities would include mass excavation, site grading and foundation work. Other activities that would occur with construction of each phase would typically include use of heavy diesel powered machinery such as impact hammers, compactors, front end loaders, backhoes, bulldozers, scrapers, graders, trucks and concrete equipment. Later activities would include the construction of the building and may require a crane and smaller equipment such as generators, compressors, power tools, and hand tools. The nearest noise sensitive building adjacent to the project site is the Courtyard Marriott Hotel located along Veterans Boulevard which is approximately 413 feet north of the project site. Another hotel (Residence Inn Marriott) is located approximately 900 feet north of the project. Several office buildings are located near the project site. The closest office building is located approximately 150 south of the project site, and the second closest office building is located approximately 217 feet east of the project site. The project includes a proposed child care facility, which would be constructed as early as Phase 1 which is expected to be located indoors approximately 350 feet east of the project site. Additionally, there is an existing child care facility located approximately 700 feet from the project site, which has an outdoor play area. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 53 IV.J. Noise Page IV.J-12

49 This page intentionally left blank. 54 III. Responses to Comments Page III-40

50 RESPONSE TO HCP ATTACHMENT Response to HCP ATT-1 This comment is the same as HCP -1 comment. Please see Response to HCP-1 in the previous section. Response to HCP ATT-2 This comment is the same as HCP -2 comment. Please see Response to HCP-2 in the previous section. Response to HCP ATT-3 This comment is the same as HCP -3 comment. Please see Response to HCP-3 in the previous section. Response to HCP ATT-4 This comment is the same as HCP -7 comment. Please see Response to HCP-7 in the previous section. Response to HCP ATT-5 This comment is the same as HCP -8 comment. Please see Response to HCP-8 in the previous section. Response to HCP ATT-6 The Loading and Service Areas requirements on Page IV.I-13 of Section IV.I Land Use were extracted from the City of South San Francisco Bay West Cove Specific Plan District, therefore no changes are necessary. Response to HCP ATT-7 Parking structure height was edited on Page IV.J-12 to reflect the changes described in the letter. Therefore, Page IV.J-12 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): These activities would include the construction of one 8 or 9 level parking structure, seven new commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel. 55 III. Responses to Comments Page III-41

51 This page intentionally left blank. 56 III. Responses to Comments Page III-42

52 57

53 This page intentionally left blank. 58 III. Responses to Comments Page III-44

54 RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Response to CALTRANS-1 The improvement to the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to the Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection has already been completed and should not have been included in the list of planned improvements for the year The text in the Draft Subsequent EIR has been edited to eliminate this improvement as requested by the comment letter. Therefore, Page IV.M-31 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): 1. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane a. Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane. b. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline. 2. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp a. Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach. b. Restripe the Northbound Off-Ramp approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a combined through/right turn lane. 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard a. Add an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach and restripe the existing combined through/right turn lane as an exclusive through lane. 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp a. Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. Also, provide a second exclusive right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending partway to Gateway Boulevard). Response to CALTRANS-2 The City of South San Francisco will identify the exact Fair Share dollar amount required to be paid during the Building Permit process, when the ultimate ratio of office/r&d square footage will be determined. 59 III. Responses to Comments Page III-45

55 This page intentionally left blank 60 III. Responses to Comments Page III-46

56 61

57 62

58 63

59 This page intentionally left blank. 64 III. Responses to Comments Page III-50

60 CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION (CSLC) Response to CSLC-1 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and describes the CSLC s jurisdiction and management authority over the project site. Response to CSLC-2 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Subsequent EIR and merely confirms the proposed project description. Response to CSLC-3 As described on Page III-1, the site is currently vacant and there are no uses on the site. The Bay Trail would be located in Planning Area 2/3 (analyzed in the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR). As stated on Page IV.I-23, the project would not limit any access to the Bay Trail and would be in compliance with BCDC policy Gov. Code Section to provide maximum feasible public access to the bay and its shorelines. The project is located across Veterans Boulevard from the Bay Trail. Project construction would only occur on the project site and there would be no requirement for closure of the Bay Trail due to public safety concerns. Response to CSLC-4 Per BCDC s sea level rise policy for the San Francisco Bay Plan, risk assessments are only required within BCDC s jurisdiction and risk assessments are not required for repairs of existing facilities, interim projects, small projects that do not increase risks to public safety, and infill projects within existing urbanized areas. Nevertheless, sea level rise is discussed on Page IV.H-23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, which stated that based on review of BCDC s Shoreline Areas Potentially Exposed to Sea Level Rise, Central Bay West Shore; the project site is not located within an area of expected sea level rise. 65 III. Responses to Comments Page III-51

61 This page intentionally left blank. 66 III. Responses to Comments Page III-52

62 IV. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR This section presents corrections and clarifications that have been made to the text of the Draft Subsequent EIR. These changes include revisions resulting from specific responses to comments. The text revisions are organized by section and page number as they appear in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Text deleted from the Draft Subsequent EIR is shown in strikethrough, and new text is underlined. Section III Project Description Table III-1 on Page III-11 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Phase Buildings FAR 1 (2016) Table III-1 Phasing Buildout Square Footage Floors Building Height (feet) B3 132, B4 120, Hotel (200 rooms) 126, Surface Parking 732 Total Phase , B1 102, (2017) B2 102, Retail 20,000 Parking Structure Surface Parking* 122 Total Phase , Total Phase 1 & 2 604,067 1,412 3 (2019) B5 137, B6 130, B7 158, Parking Structure ,300 Surface Parking* (459) Total Phase ,277 1,066 Total Phase 1, 2, & 3** ,030,344 2,478 Total Phase 1, 2, & 3*** ,030,344 2,670 Parking Spaces 225 (aggregate spaces-b5, B6, B7) Tables III-2 and III-4 on Page III-14 and III-19 of the Draft Subsequent EIR are revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Final Environmental Impact Report 67 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-1

63 Table III-2 Prior Approved Projects and Proposed Project for Planning Area I (project site) Parkin g Ratio Use Building Area (sf) Site Area (sf) FAR (per 1,000 sf) Parking Stalls Precise Plan (proposed project) R&D/Office 884, ,503 Hotel w/restaurant 126,000 1/room Retail 20, Total 1,030, , , Bay West Cove Commercial Project R&D 620, ,698 Hotel 296, Retail 10, Restaurant 10, Child Care (100 children minimum) 2 Total 916, , , Bay West Cove Commercial Project Auto Display Showroom 23,866 N/A Service/Reception 24,570 N/A Car Wash 1,716 N/A Customer Parking N/A 280 Service and Handicap Parking N/A 82 Additional Parking N/A 1,459 Total 3 50, ,344 N/A 1, of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D buildings and area also included in total R&D parking count of 4,242, 2,503 above. 2 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was assumed it would be part of office/r&d square footage in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3. 3 The remaining square footage of the 1997 Bay West Cove Commercial Project for Planning Area 1 would be covered with car display lots. 68 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-2

64 Table III-4 Britannia Oyster Point and Development Statistics Parking Ratio Use Building Area (sf) Site Area (sf) FAR (per 1,000 sf) Parking Stalls (proposed project) R&D/Office 884, ,503 Hotel w/restaurant 126,000 1/room Retail 20, Total 1,030, , ,670 Britannia Oyster Point (Planning Areas 2 and 3) R&D 560, ,739 Retail (required under 10, current entitlements) 2 Restaurant (required 0 0 under current entitlements) 3 Child Care 2 8, Total 578, , ,763 Britannia Oyster Point and R&D/Office 1,445, ,242 Retail 20, Hotel 126, Child Care 3 8, Total 1,599,169 1,848, , of the 200 spaces allocated to the Hotel will be shared with R&D buildings and area also included in total R&D parking count of 4,242, 2,503 above. 2 Retail and restaurant requirements for Britannia Oyster Point have been subsumed into the proposed development plan. 3 Square footage for child care facilities for the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project was not provided. It was assumed it would be part of office/r&d square footage in either Planning Area 1 or Planning Area 2/3. 69 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-3

65 Page III-22 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Ensure compliance with all traffic related standards relative to state highways Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Ensure that all applicable federal and state air quality standards are achieved and maintained. San Mateo County Flood Control District Design approval for on-site flood control. San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health Ensure compliance with regulations related to Hazardous Materials Business Plans. Federal Aviation Administration Establish height limits and noise contours relative to the operation of the San Francisco International Airport. Section IV.B Aesthetics Page IV.B-23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): No flood lights shall be utilized Flood lights shall be used during construction phases only as necessary, therefore impacts would be short term and temporary. Flood lights shall not be used during project operation. Section IV. C Air Quality Page IV.C-23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): A child care center that would serve employees of both the proposed project and the Britannia Oyster Point 1 project area would be constructed either late in Phase 1 or during Phase 2. This analysis conservatively assumes the child care center is completed as part of Phase 1. Page IV.C-27 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Land Use for Phase 1 would include 252,593 square feet of office/r&d space, a 200 room hotel, and 792 parking spaces. Phase 2 would include 205,474 square feet of office/r&d space, 20,000 square feet of retail, 122 additional surface parking spaces, and 498 parking spaces in a parking structure. Phase 3 would include 426,277 square feet of office/r&d space, a reduction of 459 surface parking spaces, 225 podium parking spaces and 1,300 additional parking spaces in a parking structure. At build-out the project would include 884,344 square feet of office/r&d space, a 200 room hotel, 20,000 square feet of retail, 70 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-4

66 395 surface parking spaces, 285 podium parking spaces and parking spaces in a parking structure. Section IV. G Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page IV.G-16 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Further, the project is not situated within a runway end zone, and proposed building heights would not penetrate critical airspace surfaces, which are at approximately feet above the project site. Page IV.G-12 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2 Inspect, Test and Remove Potentially Contaminated Soils and Groundwater During excavation at all construction areas during each phase of the project, the contractor shall inspect the exposed soil for visual evidence of contamination, particularly near the areas identified during site reconnaissance. If contamination indicators (e.g., obvious soil staining, odors, etc.) are encountered during excavation or grading activities outside of the lead or petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas, all work in the affected area shall stop and an investigation shall be designed and performed to verify the presence and extent of contamination at the site. Results shall be reviewed and approved by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site clean up) before construction is allowed to begin again. The investigation could include collecting samples for laboratory analysis and quantifying contaminant levels within the proposed excavation and surface disturbance areas. Subsurface investigation shall determine the appropriate worker protection and the hazardous material handling and disposal procedures. Areas with soil and groundwater determined to be hazardous waste outside of the lead and petroleum hydrocarbon placement areas shall be removed by personnel who have been trained through the OSHArecommended 40-hour safety program (29 CFR ) with an approved plan for groundwater extraction, soil excavation, control of contaminant releases to the air, and off-site transport or on-site treatment. Results of the investigation and all contaminated soil excavation, groundwater removal, disposal and/or mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with the SMP. Results of this work will be documented and sent to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (the lead regulatory agency for the site cleanup). Section IV. H- Hydrology and Water Quality Page IV.H-21 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): 71 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-5

67 If, however, the projected project runoff would be greater than the current capacity of the existing City storm line serving the project site, the improvements specified in Mitigation Measure IV.H would be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Section IV.I Land Use Page IV.I-14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport allows The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan restricts building heights on the project site greater than 150 feet above ground level, up to the critical airspace surface height. to from feet above mean sea level. Section IV.J-Noise Page IV.J-8 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Chapter V of the San Mateo County ALUC was updated in November 2012 by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, addressing specifically the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. Page IV.J-12 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): These activities would include the construction of one 8 or 9 level parking structure, seven new commercial buildings ranging from 4 to 6 stories, and one hotel. Page IV.J-14 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): The noise level standards of the South San Francisco Municipal Code are not applied to construction activities because of a Special Provision that allows construction activities between 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. An Exception Permit would allow construction activities to extend beyond the noise provisions of the City of South San Francisco. The permit would be obtained from the City of South San Francisco and approved by the City Engineer. Page IV.J-15 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): 72 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-6

68 Development of Phase 1, which would include the construction of Buildings B3, B4, and the hotel, and potentially a child care facility on the project site, would have the potential to impact existing buildings located offsite adjacent to the project site. Section IV.M-Transportation Edits have been made to traffic mitigations IV.M-3, IV.M-5, IV.M-8, IV.M-9, IV.M-10, IV.M-14, and IV.M-15 in Section IV.M-Transportation and Traffic,and Pages II-31 through -37 (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline). Mitigation Measure IV.M-3 The applicant shall be responsible for providing provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City s East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project s fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following mitigations. Mitigation Measure IV.M-5 The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City s East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project s fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for a second offramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive. The fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. This measure is included in the City s East of 101 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mitigation Measure IV.M-8 The applicant shall be responsible provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for providing the following improvement as shown in Table IV.M-22 and Figure IV.M-24, Year 2017 Mitigated Lane Geometrics and Control, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. Mitigation Measure IV.M-9 9a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-RampAdjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. 9b. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. 73 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-7

69 9c. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. Mitigation Measure IV.M-10 The applicant shall provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City s East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project s fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements as shown in Figure 24, Year 2017 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Mitigation Measure IV.M-10 Adjust signal timing and provide right turn overlap phasing for the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard right turn. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the first phase of development. Mitigation Measure IV.M-14 The applicant shall be responsible for providing provide its appropriate fee as determined by the City s East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. This is the project s fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements, which are described below and shown in Table 23 and Figure IV.M-25. The fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Mitigation Measure IV.M-14 14a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp Adjust signal timing. The main criteria is to adjust signal timing to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of the development. 14b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Provide overlap signal phasing for the southbound Veterans Boulevard right turn lanes. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of the development. Mitigation Measure IV.M-15 15a. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Flyover Off-Ramp/Project Access 74 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-8

70 Adjust signal timing. The signal time will be adjusted to reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level while not creating a significant level of service impact. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of development. 15b. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Adjust signal timing. The applicant shall be responsible for providing this improvement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed in the second phase of development. Page IV.M-31 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): 1. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane a. Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane. b. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 mainline. 2. Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp a. Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach. b. Restripe the Northbound Off-Ramp approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a combined through/right turn lane. 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard a. Add an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach and restripe the existing combined through/right turn lane as an exclusive through lane. 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. Also, provide a second exclusive right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending partway to Gateway Boulevard). Section IV.N-Utilities Page IV.J-15 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): There are no creeks in the project area, and one natural drainage channel runs along the railroad track just outside the project site. or natural surface drainages in the project area. Page IV.N-23 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Mitigation Measure IV.H replaces mitigation measures imposed as part of the 2000 Bay West Cove Commercial Project Supplemental EIR. 75 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-9

71 Page IV.N-26 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Wastewater from Cal Water s South San Francisco service area communities of South San Francisco and Colma is treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP. The sewer system includes gravity lines and force mains that combine both wastewater and storm water runoff. The City of South San Francisco has separate storm drain and sanitary sewer system. Page IV.N-27 of the Draft Subsequent EIR is revised as follows (deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline): Mitigation Measure IV.N-5.1 Wastewater Collection Before the proposed project is connected to the City's wastewater collection system, the City shall upgrade and improve Pump Station #14, in accordance with the 2012 SSMP. The project applicant shall pay its fair share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works Department, in accordance with General Plan policies and based on the project s contribution to wastewater flows. In addition, the project applicant would be required to dedicate Pump Station #14 to the City of South San Francisco. 76 IV. Revisions to the Draft EIR Page IV-10

72 391

73 392

74 393

75 394

76 395

77 396