Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSSF DowntownStationAreaPlan Initial Study CITYOFSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN STA11ON AREA PLAN Initial Stud y Prepared for City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by Atkins 475 Sansome Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, Califomia 94111 October2013 October2013 Contents Contents SECTION1. 1 ntroduction.........................................................................................................1 SECTION 2. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.......................................................9 SECTION3. Determination......................................................................................................9 SECTION 4, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.............................................................. 10 I. Evaluation Process...................................................................................................10 11. Aesthetics..................................................................................................................11 111. Agriculture/ Forestry Resources.............................................................................12 IV. Air Quality.................................................................................................................14 V. Biological Resources................................................................................................16 V1. Cultural Resources...................................................................................................19 VI1. Geology/Soils...........................................................................................................20 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................23 IX. Hazards/ Hazardous Materials................................................................................24 X. Hydrology/Water Quality.......................................................................................27 X1. Land Use/ Planning..................................................................................................31 XI 1. Mineral Resources....................................................................................................32 X111. Noise..........................................................................................................................32 XIV. Population/ Housing................................................................................................34 XV. Public Services..........................................................................................................35 XVI. Recreation..................................................................................................................35 XVI 1. Transportation/Traffic............................................................................................36 XVI 11. Utilities(Service9ystems.........................................................................................38 XIX. Mandatory Findings of Sgnificance......................................................................41 SECTION5. References..........................................................................................................43 Appendices Appendix A CN D D B Results Figures Figure 1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity...................................................................................................2 Figure2Existing Land Uses.......................................................................................................................................4 Figure3 Proposed Land Use D esignations............................................................................................................5 Figure4Proposed Height Limits..............................................................................................................................6 Tables Table 1 Existing and Proposed Land Uses...........................................................................................................7 City of South San Francisco iii South San Francisco Downtown Elation Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial study Contents October2013 [THISPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] South San Francisco Downtown Elation Area Plan IV City of South San Francisco Initial Eludy Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 1 Introduction October2013 SECTION 1 . Introduction This I nitial Study has been incorporated by reference into the Notice of Preparation for this project. This checklist is to be completed for all projects that are subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The information, analysis, and conclusions contained in the checklist form the basis for deciding whether an environmental impart report (EI R), a negative declaration (ND), or a mitigated negative declaration (M N D) is to be prepared.Additionally, the checklist shall be used to focusan El Ron the effects determined to be potentially significant. 1. Project title: The South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 2. Lead agency name and address: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 3. Contact person and phone number: Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development 650.877.8535 4. Project location: The South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan (Station Area Plan) planning area is located in the geographic center of the City. The planning area boundary includes the South San Francisco Caltrain station and the majority of commercial and civic development in the City's Downtown Neighborhood. A portion of theplanning areaedendsmst of U.S Highway 101 (U&101), encompassing much of the East Side Neighborhood, but excludes the majority of the existing office development east of U&101 and the Gateway Neighborhood. The planning area is generally bound by Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue to the north; Gateway Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue to the east; Railroad Avenue and Canal Street to the south; and Spruce Avenue and Maple Avenue to the west (refer to Figure 1 [Project Location and Regional Vicinity]). 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 City of South San Francisco 1 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study -F LEGEND �W STLIDYAFEA BCLII W, DaNIffaM BCLINDARY FAI LF�AD TFACKS IMCn\/ER4JLSPLR .............. .............. 1/2 MILE FADLIS FIRCM STAnCN VF EXISnINIGGINILTRAJINISTAnCINI PROJE Vi LOCATION PRCPCSED CALTRAIIN STAnCN el�p, Y E�,, oa-MA CREEK CAN4L T,v-, S41"B SC-Iol W, 10 o PAW&WfWAnCN cFEN SPACE 0 �C]B, E Ol CPSI se Y,- Martin <iiB'1\4�1;6,ph$,� School ffJf �x 01IR South if, Francisco bul Riess IIINTH--,NF Center N HBLF)(BZ Ol CPSI FIRE 101 ASPEN AVENUE Loweis �M Home r68po 'NE v Improvement EJR"A' I CPSI`-/ VENUE h E�,,n SEVENTH-11-ANF fa CALIFORNIA AVENUE L-J LL= LLLLLF�� F-7 I-JIXTHUNE EPX 0LF1`=0 RfIfff) Ql CPSI FIRE i LUX AVENUE QSEN 'TAINRACK-L-N' I � � ] Church MILLER AVENUE 77711�1 GRAND AVENUE Rx=8 �L � I I �11L [E LLL THIRD"LA E FBTI S11 7-Tq 0I CPSI FIRE I LEI � I BADEN AVENUE �I-ANE z TT11777 6� E 111 GUMMERCIAL AVE _7=10M ff -T[Vmi[11R�M�i N=_ #1 ............... (IT K40EFOV"f 0 1 SI FIRE Q ill, & L 0I fff� 0 u) 101 0 250 500 1000. NORTH ;�l 3=] M FT1 iq VINX Figure 1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity ATKINS SECTION 1 Introduction October2013 6. General plan designation: Current General Plan land use designation:Vaious(see Figure 2 [Existing Land Uses]) 7. Zoning: Current Zoning designations Vaious 8. Description of project(describe the whole action involved,including,but not limited to,later phases of the project,and any secondary,support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation): The Station Area Plan will guide the City in its planning efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse downtown, patlCUlaly the area surrounding the City's Caltrain commuter rail station. The planning am includes approximately 35 blocks within 0.5 mile of the existing Caitrain station. The Station Area Plan will craft a vision for the Downtown cores and identify an implementation process to achie/e City and community goals, including design standads and regulations for future development. The goals of the Station Area Plan include: protecting the historic nature of Downtown, improving access to the Caltrain station, supporting local businesses, improving east/west connectivity to Downtown, reducing traffic congestion on Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevad, and increasing the use of alternative transportation. The Station Area Plan would support transit-oriented development (TOD); createan open spacefranework; create pedestrian linkages, alleys, and apedestrian priorityzone, createa new bicycle network; employ new perking strategies, and implement affordable housing and anti- displacement strategies. Existing land uses in the planning am ere provided in Figure2, and Figure3 (Proposed Land Use Designations) shows the land use designations proposed in the Station Area Plan a;Alternative B. A compaison of existing and proposed land uses is also provided in Table 1 (Existing and Proposed Land Uses). As shown in Table 1, the types of land uses accommodated in the planning am would be similes to existing conditions under the Station Area Plan. However, these useswould be intensified, particularly within 0.25 mile of the future Caltran station. Within this zone a Transit Core High Density Residential Designation is proposed, allowing up to 120 dwelling units per acre. Grand Avenuewould eontinueto be the historic core of the City and building heights would be limited to about 45 feet directly fronting Grand Avenue to protect the pedestrian and historic scale of Grand Avenue Heights off Grand Avenue in this zone would be allowed up to 75 feet to allow for higher intensity development. Proposed allowable building heights intheentire planning amaeprovided in Figure4(Proposed Height Limits). The remainder of the Downtown Commercial Core, from Tanaack Lane south to Second Lane would provide for higher intensities that currently allowed, up to 65 feet in height and up to 78 dwelling units per acre Along Airport Boulevad and north of Armour Avenue, a new medium density mixed use designation encourages higher density residential (up to 40 dwelling units per acre) as well a; business commercial at up to 0.5 floor am ratio (FAR). No land use changes ere proposed for the Business Commercial designation currently applied to the zone franed by US-101, the rail tracks, and Airport Boulevad. Theammst of US-101 would continueto bedesignated ahigh intensity employment center, and similes to existing conditions, no residential use would be accommodated. However, the maximum allowable density would increase from 2.0 FAR to approximately 3.5 FAR. The Station Area Plan would accommodate a net increase of approximately 1,400 dwelling units, 0.8 million squae feet (sf) of City of South San Francisco 3 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study VERA OM �������1�11���� _� �� • ' ������:�� lillll � �� � i'iiiiiii'i IG.1.1111�11� r �� • r -- �w���1�1111111� a� a _ 1111 11 ii II, VA ��������� ��!. �� �= �� �.�� III: ������������������ �� °• _������;1i,�. 1111 ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�� � � � � _III I_ _IIIIIIIII ,..1111111 IIIII :IIIIIIIII ������������ �� .. liiiin III 11111111 111IF7 I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII' ,, �� 1111= T-77 -;gin . „ �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■ / I■■■ � IIIIIIIIIIIIU�IhIIIIIIIG���i���� ��i��llllllllll�llllllllllllll IIIIIIU' i,U��i„- (� :` � . 1111 Illlllllllllllllllll 1.11111111JJ�1111111111111111111111111111111111�11111111111111111 iii�j� I�l I IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�4y�� IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII ' �iiiiiiiiiiiiii � :,,�� � �� -� :IIll",I111111111 IIIIII�. . .. 1 ..;.11111111111111 oil lillll) 111111111111111111111W1 ' 4 Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 111 - � Il /,� � "��► ll.. �� — 1111 lUyl » ��nnnnn�m��_ �' .ml■ IL1 �11��11�III�I1.1 •_ __ , 1111111 'Milli X1111111111111111111 = III�IIIIIIIIIIIII'niiiin�iiii= == �` IIIr= 1111111111111111sIII11111■. ,IIIIIIIIIIl1D mmmmm►� �,� III � � IIII �►, r �` loom yj . .- -. =NEIGHBORHOO _ Martin wL�117 PcaE School South Francisco /Z Tr f H Bus ess Center 10 Center > " f . f I — i 101 f GATEW41 , 000 NEIGHB D --- -- _ -- — ASPEN AVE NUL -� / i r a Lowe's °v Ho SIGN HILL T I urea I re rovernt i R�E IGHBORHOO � NINIAVENUL � w NEI i o 0 o o r I J p ° l�N x/0 m \ CALIFORNIA AVENUE Ace , ...,_ f ool t LUX AVENUE a 1 ,o °0000 �RaNaq F sub s1AIION � aNILLLR AVLNUk cA1 GRAND AVENUE { r z �.. t., COMMERCIAL AVE J rrrr/ '%✓/////////i�.%%U,. % l//l.s G i U% % .�. ,. /�1�� : OF 1 Q LINDENVILLE ` T NEIGHBORHOO j N SDBM vE,ERUE /R(f SPACeenP�l/i Rr � u 1 1,I i� //// ////%/l� '";; ��'"l''r/w�j r�/�-Il�i/D/�l�//✓� ('t/(/,////fl t°/, � �" r� / �J�// t" /i w � I�FFCE m Stt.DYAF€P. NWAY IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES MIXED INDUSTRIAL RAI_FnIDTFAGK� LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OPEN SPACE -- LE&SACTIvERAlLSPLF DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES " T ;„ PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE w EJOST\r,C4LTF'AJN SrATIC\ 3 FCoLSPWNSrATICn GRAND AVENUE CORE RETAIL FOCUS DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE muuuuuuuumooimn PEDIET}aAN ALLEY Q° DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY PLUS BUSINESS COMMERCIAL TRANSIT CORE HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE-RESIDENTIAL,BUS.COMM OFFICE,RESEARCH&DEVELOPMENT o O a SCALE IRN FiEET a Source:BMS Design Group 2013. 0' 250 500 1000' Figure 3 Proposed Land Use Designations ATKINS r CBSBEJfF!V�!UZ ;; �-IiLMDESL OFJ II CPSI PPE - �� Martin w PG& School i E o juFOyav � RMO Teens South San' FNU �RaDEN Francisco C17 Business Center . z > a !l _ a 1 z 01 HBLFX BZ f<$' J OFJ-II CPSI PPE \ ASPEN AVENUE Lowe, I e Lys "oe �r Rq TJ 10!I 7a �'u � ko�E Improverrent Horre I C PSI PPE lu ;k y G INt AVENUE _ z y cauFOBNIAAVENUE Spruce m School UX JacKOta90 vatk " s UE / I JftPND P�IEN SUBSTATION I ® GNANU AVENUE w " C — x r I PPE � w MWq z � .J z PE z COMMERCIAL AVE a o s f RAILROAD AVE „ u � e MOE FOVU4f OFNI - r — ♦ .. EET • � � 101 a LEGEND TWEZ!BSFB!CPVCEBSZ 30'HEIGHT LIMIT 75'HEIGHT LIMIT SBMPI3E11USBDLT %//////% 35'HEIGHT LIMIT 85'HEIGHT LIMIT N T-FIBD-VV!SBMTC,ZJS 45'HEIGHT LIMIT 120'HEIGHT LIMIT >.............. SBEVT!CfiPN.r I1UB.1F`0 50'HEIGHT LIMIT INCREASED ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AT Q° <% FY�UCH!CBN7660T1E.1F� CORNERS ON GRAND AVENUE v 60'HEIGHT LIMIT MFCPTFEICBN7SBOITLEL.LM 65'HEIGHT LIMIT NO CHANGE FROM EXISTING LIMITS o IUIUIUN CHANGING FROM EXISTING LIMITS I o Source:BIAS Design Group 2013. 0' 250 500 1000' SCALORTHEET Figure 4 Proposed Height Limits ATKINS SECTION 1 Introduction October2013 Table 1 Existing and Proposed Land Uses Land Lke Desgnadon L3riWng Conditions Additional Development UhderStationArea Ran Residential 1,436 dveelling units 1,435 dveelling units Downtown Commercial 602,643 sf — Auto-serving Commercial 54,664 sf — Business Commercial 129,884 sf 511,780 sf Hotel 285,165 sf — Industrial 797,055 sf 21,250 sf I nstitutional 150,142 sf — Commercial — 268,800 sf Office — — Office/R&D — 1,185,049 sf commercial uses, 21,000 sf of industrial uses, and 1.2 million sf of new office/ research and development uses under Alternative B. Circulation improvements would also be implemented throughout the Station Plan Area to balance travel modes to improve access between Downtown and the East Side Neighborhood, improve street connectivity, reduce impaetsfrom regional traffic, and provide transit enhancements from Downtown to BART and the South San Francisco ferry term inai. In order to ensure acoessibility to the Caltrain station, the station would be moved south. An extension of Grand Avenue would be constructed, as shown in Figure3, and the Caltrain station would be located at the new intersection of the Grand Avenue extension and the existing I ndustriall Way. The extension is proposed for concentrated retail land use to serve Caltrain riders and employees east of U&101. A below-grade pedestrian underpass would be constructed to connect Grand Avenue on either side of U&101. New roadways are also proposed- Rai I road Avenue is proposed to be extended east to connect to Gateway Boulevard, and a new roadway is proposed to connect Grand Avenue to the Railroad Avenue extension and Gateway Boulevard. As shown in Figure3, a pedestrian priority arm is proposed surrounding Grand Avenue. The zone includes the downtown commerciall core from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard and extends to the future Caltrain plaza and to the eastern neighborhood. The zone includes the three major east/west streets Grand Avenue(both sides of U&101), MillerAvenueand Baden Avenue, and portionsof Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Cypress Avenue and Airport Boulevard. Street trees and pedestrian lighting are encouraged within the pedestrian priority zone, and intersection safety improvements would be prioritized within thezoneand along Linden Avenua Three public plezaa arms arm proposed within the study area At City Hall, reconfiguration of the grassy areas along Grand Avenue would result in usable flat arm that would be furnished with seating. In addition, the block of Grand Avenue facing City Hall would be a periodic event space that could be temporarily dosed to through traffic. Special paving and lighting would be used to create an event space. A plaza at the relocated Caltrain station would include landscaping, decorative lighting, seat walls, and an interpretive display. A public space would allso be located in the vicinity of the neighborhood center on City of South San Francisco 7 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 1 Introduction Linden Avenue around Aspen Avenue and Pine Avenue. This would be a location for local services, cafes, restaurants, with wider sidewalks, special pa,/ing in the streets and sidewalks, and lighting to add character and slow traffic in thearea 9. Surrounding land uses and setting(briefly describe the project's surroundings): • The East of 101 Area is located east of the project area This arm is built out primary with warehousing, resealrch and de✓elopment, and biotechnology uses, but some industrial uses are also found in the area • The Lindenville Neighborhood, located south of the planning area and west of U&101, is a large scale industrial area Warehousing and distribution and light industrial uses are dominant; storage, automobile repair, manufaeturi ng, and small business parks are also present. • The Downtown Neighborhood is a commercial and residential neighborhood located directly west of the plan area Commercial areas consist of smaller-scale community-serving stores. Housing types range from single-family residences to three-story apartment buildings. Housing density decreases to thewest, away from the plan area • The Sign Hill Neighborhood is a residential neighborhood located northwest of the planning area Both single-family and multi-family residences are found in the neighborhood. • The Paradise Valley/Terrebay Neighborhood, located north of the planning area, consists of older residential subdivisions on the southern slope of San Bruno Mountain. Two schools are also located in the neighborhood. The eastern edge of this neighborhood is the PG&E electrical line uti I ity corridor. • The Gateway Neighborhood is located northeast of the planning area Similar to other neighborhoods east of U&101, this area consists of non-residential office and commercial uses. The neighborhood includes a regional shopping center and the South San Francisco Business Center. • The Colma Creek Canal is located south of the plan arm. The canal tra terses the City, generally from east to west, and connects to the San Francisco Bay. The canal ischannelized in the vicinity of the project sits but supportswetland and riparian vegetation along some areas of the canal. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g.,permits,financing approval,or participation agreement): I n addition to the City of South San Francisco (Lead Agency), other agencies whose approval may be required for the proposed project include, but are not necessarily limited to: ■ Peninsula Corridor.bint Powers Board (Caltrain) • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) • BayAreaAir Quality Management District (BAAQMD) • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 8 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected October 2013 SECTION 2. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture/Forestry Resources M Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality Z Land Use/Planning F-1 Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Z Public Services Z Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Q Mandatory Findings of Significance SECTION 3. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. F-1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there v not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGA'IT413 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Z I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL INTACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "less than significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL INTACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. October 1,2013 EFig-nkure e- Date Susy Malkin Chief Planner Name Title City of South San Francisco South Son Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Inlflal Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION I Evaluation Process SECTION 4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. • PROCESS 1) A brief explanation Is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" ansNer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicatewhether the impact is potentially significant, lessthan significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an El R is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-Than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly Explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El R, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier El R or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). I n this case, a brief discussi on should identify the folIowing: a) Earlier Analysi s Used. I dentify and state where they are avaiIablefor review. b) ImpatsAdequately Addressed. Identifywhich effects from the ebovechecklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on theeerlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the Extent to which they address site-specific conditions for theproject. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting I nformation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should bested in thediscussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats, however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format i s sel ected. 9) The Explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluateeach question. b) The mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significant. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 10 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION II Aesthetics Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ® El El El Discussion The Station Area Plan would result in increased building heights and densities throughout the planning area Development under the plan would ha,/e the potential to result in an adverse effect on a sonic vista This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Sibstantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, ® El El El trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildingswithin a state scenic highway? Discussion The planning area includes landmark and historic buildings that may be considered scenic resources (South San Francisco n.d., Planning Sib-Areas Element Downtown). Rede/dopment under the aetion Area Plan would hate the potential to damage scenic resources. This potentially significant impact wi I I be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Sibstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the ® El El El site and itssurroundings? Discussion I mplementation of the proposed project would result in increased land use densities throughout the plan area, including increased building heights in the Grate Avenue core area, and would relocate a Caltran station. As a result, redetelopment under the Station Area Plan would hate the potential to degrade existing visual character or quality in the plan area This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcomi ng E I R. City of SDuth San Francisco 11 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION III Agriculture/Forestry Resources Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime viewsin the area? Discussion The land uses accommodated under the Station Area Plan would hate the potential to include sources of light and glare, such as security lighting or new glass panels on office structures. However, the area is currently developed with similar land uses. Redevelopment would not result in a substantial net increase in nighttime lighting or daytime glare sources. Additionally, the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) includes multiple building and construction regulations and zoning requirements that are intended to minimize localized light and glare impacts. For example, Section 15.48.080 (Exterior Security Lighting) requires lighting plans for security lighting to be re/iewed and approved by the police department. Approval is based in part on compatibility with surrounding land uses. Section 20.300.010 (Performance Standards) requires lighting to be placed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public streets, and to prevent adverse interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of surrounding properties. Additionally, the Performance Standards state that no use shall be operated such that significant, direct glare, incidental to the operation of the use is visible beyond the boundaries of the lot wherethe use is located. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts to lessthan significant and this impact will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. • RESTRY RFM U RC ES Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Ste Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation asan optional model to use in assessing impactson agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.Would the project: (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of ❑ Statewide Importance (Farmland),asshown on the mapsprepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to nonagricultural use? Discussion Agricultural resources include lands designated as farmland in the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), parcels under a Williamson Act contract, and any other panels identified by local jurisdictions as agricultural in nature or where agricultural activity is permitted. The dominant land use designations in the proposed project area a-e Downtown Commercial, Downtown High Density Residential, Downtown Medium Density Residential, Mixed Industrial, and Office. Theentire plan aeaisdesignated Urban and Built-Up Land on the FMMP South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 12 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION III Agriculture/Forestry Resources map for San Mateo County and does not include any farmland of importance (California DOC 2011). No properties within or adjacent to the project site ae currently used for agricultural purposes. Implementation of the Station Area Plan would not involve changes that could result in conversion of famland to non-agricultural uses. The project would result in no impact and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcomi ng E I R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,ora Williamson Act ❑ ❑ El contract? Discussion The project site and surrounding aea does not contain existing zoning for agricultural use or land under a Williamson Act Contrast. The project would result in no impact and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcomi ng E I R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land (as ❑ defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production (asdefined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? Discussion The project site does not contain existing zoning for, and would not cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production. The plan aea is designated us Urban by the California Deportment of Forestry and Fire Protection and does not contain forestry resources (California DOFFP 2003). The project would result in no impact and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcomi ng E I R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Result in the lossof forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? (e) Involve otherchangesin the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to nonagricultural use orconversion of fore land to nonforest use? Discussion There is no famland or forest land located in the vicinity of the proposed project site, as the aea is highly urbanized and developed with residential and business uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to development that would convert famland to non-agricultural uses or City of SDuth San Francisco 13 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION IVAirQuality forest land to non-forest uses. The project would result in no impact and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. IV.! AIRQUAIJTY Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project: (a) Conflictwith or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable airquality ® El El El plan? Discussion The proposed project site is located within San Mateo County,within the nine-county San Franndsoo Bay Area Air Basin (Basin) and is under thejurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which is required, pursuant to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), to reduce missions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. The 2010 Clean Air Plan was adopted by the Board of D irectors on September 15, 2010. The 2010 CAP is based on regional population projections included in Generail Plans for those communities located within the Basin, including the City of South San Francisco. The proposed project would accommodate a higher development intensity than is currently proposed for the plan area in the South San Frandsoo General Plan. Therefore, build-out of the Station Area Plan may conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, and this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Violate any air quality standard orcontribute substantially to an ® ❑ El ❑ existing orprojected air quality violation? Discussion Criteria air emissions refer to six common air pollutants for which the federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S Environmentai Protection Agency to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project would result in construction-related and operationail criteria air missions. Further analysis is required to determine whether construction and operation emissions from the proposed project would violate an air quaility standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, in accordance with the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Potentially significant air quality impactswill be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 14 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION IV Air Quality Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ® ❑ El ❑ pollutant for which the project region isnonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissionsthat exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone p re c u rso rs)? Discussion The BAAQMD significance thresholds for operational-related criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions represent the levels at which a project's individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin's existing air quality conditions. Further analysis is required to determine whether the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Potentially significant cumulative air quality impactswill be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Expose sensitive receptorsto substantial pollutant concentrations? ® El El El Discussion The planning area is located adjacent to U&101 and the Caltrain railroad line. It currently contains residences, office, research and de✓dopment, manufacturing space, industrial, and commercial uses. The proposed project will allow for those land uses to continue and expand a;identified in the Station Area Plan. Due to the adjacency of the proposed project to major transportation thoroughfares within the City, the potential for diesel particulate emissions impacts and CO hot spots is increased. I n addition, during construction, existing sensitive receptors in adjacent de/dopment could experience higher Ie/els of emissions of criteria pollutants from construction equipment. Potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors wi I I be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Create objectionable odorsaffecting a substantial numberof ❑ ® ❑ people? Discussion The Station Area Plan does not include any of the land uses the BAAQMD has identified a; prime sources of odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants [BAAQMD 2012]). The most likely potential operational airborne odors associated with operation of the proposed land uses could emanatefrom refuse storage areas. Thessodorswould likely beconfined to the immediate vicinity of the storage areas, and since the refuse receptacles would hate lids and be emptied on a regular basis, City of SDuth San Francisco 15 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION V Bological Resources substantial odors would not likely have a chance to develop. Therefore, there would be no significant odor impacts to on-site or off-site sensitive receptors. This impact would be less than significant and wi I I not be analyzed in the forthcomi ng El R. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly orthrough habitat ❑ ❑ ® ❑ modifications,on any species identified asa candidate,sensitive,or special-statusspeciesin local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Discussion The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) indicates the occurrence of potentially sensitive biological resources in the vicinity of the plan area, including the Bay checkerspot butterfly, callippe silverspot butterfly, Mission blue butterfly, Stage's dufourine bee, and diablo helianthella (CDFW 2013). However, the plan area is currently developed with residential, commercial, and office uses. There are no large open spaces in the project area Open space consists of developed parkland, mostly graded vaunt lots, and a portion of the PG&E transmission corridor. The City's General Plan identifies the areas of the City that support biological resources, which generally consist of San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetland areas along Colma Creek (South San Francisco n.d., Open Space and Conservation Element). The City requires assessment and protection of biological resources for development in these areas. The planning area is not located in an area that supports biological resources and development in the plan area is not required to prepare a biological resource assessment. Only a small portion on the southern boundary of the planning area is adjacent to the Colma Creek Canal. The area is located south of Airport Boulevard, east of the railroad track, and east of San Mateo Avenue. Projects that would result in impacts to the canal are required to prepare biological assess nents and comply with General Plan Policies 7.1-1-2 through 7.1-1-5. However, the Station Area Plan does not propose any land use directly adjacent to the canal and the area directly adjacent to the canal is currently in use for utility infrastructure and right-of-way. In the unexpected event that a project were proposed adjacent to the creek under the Station Area Plan, development would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies, including preparation of a biological resources assessment and implementation of mitigation measures to protect or replace wetland habitat that may support sensitive species. Therefore, future development under the Station Area Plan would not result in any substantial adverse impacts to sensitive plant or animal species. This impact would be lessthan significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 16 City of S)uth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION V Eliological Resources Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,or regulationsorby the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Discussion Riparian habitat in South Francisco is limited to along Colma Creek and along the Bay Fringe. As discussed above, only a smal I area of the planning area is located in the vid pity of Colma Creek. No land uses are proposed adjacent to the Creek; however, in the unlikely event that development would potentially impact wetlands along Colma Creek, development would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies, including preparation of a biological resources assessment and implementation of mitigation measures to protect or replace wetland habitat. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities and this impact will not be addressed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ ® ❑ asdefined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,orothermeans? Discussion As discussed above, only a small area of the planning area is located in the vicinity of Colma Creek. No land uses are proposed adjacent to the Creek; however, in the unlikely event that development would potentially impact wetlands along Colma Creek, development would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies, including preparation of a biological resources assessment and implementation of mitigation measuresto protect or replaoewetland habitat. Therefore, impactswould be lessthan significant and this impact will not be addressed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ® ❑ migratory fish orwildlife speciesorwith established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Discussion As discussed under Section V(a), construction and development associated with implementation of the proposed project would not occur within an area containing habitat that supports biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on wildlife movement corridors. Landscaping City of South San Francisco 17 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION V Bological Resources vegetation within the planning area could provide potential nesting habitat for migrating birds. Future construction under the Station Area Plan would not occur ail at once and would be spread out throughout the City. Therefore, it is expected that relatively minor amounts of landscaping would be removed at any one time. As such, access to and use of native wildlife nursery sites will not be substantially interrupted by the proposed project. Additionally, if vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with applicable regulations in the California Fish and Game Code(Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting birds from construction disturbances. This impact would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Conflict with any local policiesor ordinances protecting biolog ical ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resources,such asa tree preservation policy or ordinance? Discussion Landscaped areas in the planning area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. De/elopment activities could involve removal or pruning of protected trees. Howe/er, such activities would be required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of the project approval process, including obtaining a permit for any tree removals or alterations, and avoiding tree roots during trenching for utilities. This impact would be lessthan significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Conflict with the provisionsof an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the project site. No impact would occur and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 18 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION VI Cultural Resources Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ® El El El historical resource asdefined in 15064.5? Discussion The planning area includes several designated historic resources, particularly in the Grand Avenue Core (South San Francisco n.d., Open Space and Conservation Element). Redevelopment under the Station Area Plan in the proximity of designated or potentially designated historic resources would hate the potential to result in a substantial adverse change to these resources. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ® El El El archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Discussion According to the City's General Plan, South San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely (South San Francisco n.d., Open Space and Conservation Element). While the city, including the planning arm, is essentially built out, the City's General Plan recommends archaeological surveys as part of large redevelopment activities. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Directly orindirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ® ❑ El ❑ site orunique geologic feature? Discussion South San Francisco is located on the South San Francisco Bay Block,which is underlain by the Whiskey Hill Formation (USGS n.d.). This formation has the potential to contain significant fossils (California PUC 2003). Ground-disturbing construction activities would have the potential to uncover and potentially destroy unknown paleontological resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact wi I I be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. City of SDuth San Francisco 19 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION VII Geology/Soils Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of ® ❑ El ❑ formal cemeteries? Discussion A significant archaeological site containing human remains has been uncovered in South San Francisco. Although not in the vicinity of the plan area, as discussed in Section VI(c), there is a strong possibility of additionally unknown archaeological sites throughout the city. Previously unidentified human remains could be encountered during ground disturbing activities with construction of the project. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. VIIJ GEOLOGY/SOILS Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Expose people orstructuresto potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,asdelineated on the El El ® El most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist forthe area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Minesand Geology Special Publication 42? (ii) Strong seismic groundshaking? El El ® El (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? El El ® FI (i) Landslides? El El ® El Discussion The project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1994, and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the plan area Because ground rupture generally only occurs at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known to traverse the planning arm, the planning area would not be subject to a substantial risk of surface fault ruptures. This impact would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. The City and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are in a seismically active region. A rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault could result in intensities registering 7.1 on the modified Mercalli intensity scale in the South San Francisco area Most of the city would experience an intensity level of VI I (Nonstructural Damage) or VI I I (Moderate)from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude. According to the South San Francisco General Plan, portions of the study area are located in areas potentially subject to extremely high or very high levels of ground shaking (see General Plan Health and Safety Element Figure8-2 [General Plan South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 20 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION VII Geology/Soils Pol ides for Seismically Sensitive Lands]). The structural design of the proposed buildings must adhere to state and City building code standards, such as the California Building Code (CBC), which define minimum acceptable levels of risk and safety. Additionally, in accordance with the General Plan Policy 8.1-1-1, special occupancy land uses (hospitals, schools, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community) would not be located in the arms designated as seismically sensitive in General Plan Figure8-2. Compliance with existing state and City regulations would reduce impacts to a Iessrthan-significant Ieve1. This impact would be less than significant and wi I I not be analyzed in the forthcoming E I R. Because the plan area is located in a seismically active region, the potential for seismic related ground failure exists, including liquefaction. Most of the planning area is located in an area with very low susceptibility for liquefaction, except a portion of the planning area east of US-101 with a moderate to very high risk for liquefaction (USGS n.d.). However, proposed development must adhere to the CBC and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which include requirements for geotechnical investigations in areas with high risks for liquefaction, including mitigation to minimize risks. SFFMC Section 15.08.140 (Grading Permit Requirements) also requires a soils engineering report and engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations to minimize hazards. Compliance with applicable regulations would reduce impacts to a Iessrthan-significant Ieve1. This impact would be lessthan significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. The parts of the San Francisco Bay region halving the greatest susceptibility to Iandsliding are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock units with slopes greeter than 15 percent. I n South San Francisco this hazard is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the Terrabay development and near Skyline Boulevard. Because the plan area is located in an area with slopes less than 15 percent, natural slope instability is not a concern. Excavation well stability would be regulated by CBC Chapter 33. Therefore, seismic hazards would be less than significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the lossof topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary and erosion effects would depend largely on the areas excavated, the quantity of excavation, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. I n addition, all construction activities would comply with CBC Chapter 18, which regulates excavation activities and the construction of foundations and retaining walls, and CBC Chapter 33, which regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Additionally, development would continue to be required to comply with the NPDES general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which, as part of an erosion control plan, construction site erosion and sedimentation control best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and would include such measures as silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. Further, development under the Station Area Plan would be City of S3uth San Francisco 21 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION VII Geology/Soils required to comply with all applicable provisions of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP), and would require runoff management programs that would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. Following construction, the site would consist almost entirely of impervious surfaces and would not be subject to substantial erosion or topsoil loss. This impact would be considered to be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Be located on a geologic unit orsoil that isunstable,orthat would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ become unstable asa result of the project,and potentially result in on-oroff-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction, orcollapse? Discussion As discussed in Section VI I(a), the planning area is not at substantial risk for landslides. However, the entire planning area would potentially be subject to strong ground shaking, which would hate the potential to result in ground failure, including an area east of US-101 that is at high risk for Iiquefa:;tion. Future development must comply with the CBC, which includes requirements for assessment of potentially unstable soil conditions and implementation of measures to minimize impacts. SSFMC Section 15.08.140(Grading Permit Requirements) also requires a soils engineering report and engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations to minimize hazards. Therefore, impacts related to unstable soil would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with compliance with existing regulations. This impact would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Be located on expansive soil,asdefined in Table 20-1-Bof the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risksto life or property? Discussion South San Francisco is generally characterized as halving a low expansion potential, with the exception of areas at the base of the San Bruno Mountains or adjacent to San Francisco bay (South San Francisco 2011). Development in the planning areawould not be located in an area at high risk for expansive soils. Additionally, future development must comply with the CBC and SSFMC Section 15.08.140 (Grading Permit Requirements), which require a soils engineering report and engineering geology report that would identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations to minimize hazards. This impact would be lessthan significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 22 City of S3uth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION VIII Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Have soilsincapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanksor alternative wastewater disposalsystemswhere sewersare not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion The proposed project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The City of South San Francisco would continue to provide wastewater service to the plan area No impact would occur and this issue will not be addressed in the forthcoming El R. GREENHOUSE VIIIJ • Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Generate greenhouse gasemissions,either directly or indirectly,that ® El El El may have a significant impact on the environment? Discussion Future de/dopment within the planning area could result in short-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction and long-term direct and indirect emissions from occupation of the site. Further analysis is required to determine whether construction and operation within the planning area could result in significant impacts under Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less-Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy,or regulation adopted for ® ❑ El ❑ the purpose of reducing the emissionsof greenhouse gases? Discussion On August 31, 2006, the California Assembly passed Bill 32 (AB 32), requiring California to de/dop regulationsthat will reduce GHG emissionsto 1990 le/elsby 2020 and establishes a multi-year regulatory process under thejurisdiction of the CaliforniaAir Resources Board (CaliforniaARB) to establish these regulations. The proposed project includes construction and operational activities that will result in the emission of GHGs that may impede performance standards set forth in state policies and strategies designed to meet the emission reduction objectives in AB 32. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. City of SDuth San Francisco 23 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION IX Haza rdst Haza rdous Materials HAZARDS1 HAZARDOUS Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ through the routine transport,use,ordisposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Discussion Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of common but potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, pants, cleaning materials, and caustic construction compounds. While these substances could pose a potential heath risk to construction workers and to the general public during transport, handling of these common, potentially hazardous materialswould occur in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Heath Administration (Cal OSHA) guidelines and would be disposed of in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and county regulations. DEnolition of older structures, such as in the Grand Avenue Core, that potentially contain asbestos or lead-based pant would be required to comply with all Cal OSHA regulations, including an asbestos inspection in compliance with Asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP) requirements and Title8 CCR Section 1532.1, which requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials. Adherence to federal, state, and local regulations regarding the use and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes would reduce potential impacts on human heath and safety from handling and transport of hazardous construction materials to less than significant. Adherence to applicable regulations would also pre/Ent reasonably foreseeable use and accident conditions. Implementation of de/dopment under the Station Area Plan could result in construction of additional laboratories and other research facilities, particularly east of U&101 that would use, store, or require the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as a limited increase in the Overage population that could be exposed to hazardous materials risks. N ew residential and commercial de/dopment would also result in limited use of common hazardous materials such as cleaning products. Howe/er, safety procedures for the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials are mandated by federal, state, and local laws and regulations(including the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the California Hazardous Waste Control Lary), and principles prescribed by the US Department of Homeland Security and Cal OSHA would reduce the risks to employees, visitors or the nearby public resulting from the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials to less--than- significant Ie/els. Similar to construction, adherence to applicable regulations would also pre✓ent reasonably foreseeable use and accident conditions. This impact would be less than significant and wi I I not be analyzed i n the forthcomi ng E I R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 24 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION IX Haza rdst Haza rdous Materials Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Emit haza rd ous e missio ns o r ha nd le haza rd o us or ac ute ly haza rd o us ❑ ® ❑ materials,substances,orwaste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion Several schools are located within 0.25 mile of the planning area, including South San Francisco High School and Parkway Heights Middle School. However, the proposed project would not introduce new land uses that emit or handle hazardous materials that do not airmdy exist in the project area Research and development and industrial uses would continue to be located east of US-101 in the planning arm, although development density may increase under the proposed project. Schools in the proximity of the planning area are located west of US-101. Additionally, as discussed under Sections IX(a-b), adherence to existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding the use and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes would reduce potential impacts on human health and safety from handling and transport of hazardous construction materials to less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Be located on a site that isincluded on a list of hazardous materials ❑ ® ❑ sitescompiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, asa result,would it create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment? Discussion According to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database (accessed June 13, 2013), there are several open and closed hazardous materials cases in the planning area Cases are concentrated south of Grand Avenue and along the US-101 corridor. The majority of cases involve leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). Other cases involve solvents and dry cleaning Chemicals. As discussed in the City's General Plan, the location of existing hazardous materials cases near future proposed development would be identified during the development approvail process (South San Francisco n.d., Health and Safety Element). Redevelopment or development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations for remediation of hazards, such as compliance with appropriate guidelines of the regionail Underground Storage Tank Program. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites to a I ess-than-signif i cant impact. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. City of SDuth San Francisco 25 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION IX Haza rdst Haza rdous Materials Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Fora project located within an airport land use plan or,where such ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a plan hasnot been adopted,within 2 milesof a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area? (f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project ❑ ® ❑ result in a safety hazard forpeople residing orworking in the project area? Discussion The planning area is located approximately 0.75 mile north of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). The planning area is located outside of art airport Safety Compatibility Zones, howe✓er, the planning arm is located within Airport I nfluenceArm B of theairport and issubject to FAA notification requirements (see Exhibit IV-10, FAA Notification Form 7460- Filing Requirements, of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport) (Cl CAG 2012). The maximum building height allowed in the planning area (120feet) would be below 163.2 feet,which is the lowest obstruction standard in the planning area(see Exhibit I V-14, 14 CFR Part 77 Airport Imaginary Surfaces — North Side, of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco I nternationar Airport). Additionaily, ail future de✓dopment under the plan would be subject to re/iew for compatibility with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for TIA. Consistent with CFR Part 77, de/dopers proposing structures tailer than the notification de/ations identified in Exhibit IV-10 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan would be required to file a notification with the FAA at least 30 days before the proposed start of construction. Most of the planning area is located in area that requires notification for buildings tailer than 100 feet. Coordination with the FAA would ensure that a significant safety haeard would not occur. There are no private airstrips within 2 miles of the planning area Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Discussion Construction activities associated with de/dopment under the Station Area Plan could potentially affect emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access on-site. Howe/er, SFFMC Section 11.16.170 prohibits road closures or obstructions without approval by the chief of police. Coordination with the chief of police would ensurethat adequate emergency arxessismaintained during construction. The planning area is currently urbanized. I ntensified rede/dopment would not introduce new land uses to the planning area that would physically interferewith emergency response. The Station Area Plan does not propose changes to the existing circulation system that would makeedsting roadways unwai I able for South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 26 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION XHydrology/Water Quality emergency response or evacuation. Plains for future development would be reviewed by the City's Fire Prevention Division to ensure proper emergency access to the development site. Therefore, impacts related to emergency response and evacuation would be less than significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Expose people orstructuresto a significant risk of loss, injury,or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlandsare adjacent to urbanized areasorwhere residencesare intermixed with wildlands? Discussion The planning area is highly developed, and no wildlands ere intermixed within this urbanized area The planning area is bordered on all sides by developed land. The closest wildlands arm, San Bruno Mountain County Pak, is located approximately 0.5 mile away. The project would have no impact and this issue wi I I not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. HYDRO • - QUAIJTY Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Violate anywaterquality standardsor waste discharge ❑ ® ❑ requirements? Discussion To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), San Mateo County and the twenty cities and towns in the County, including the City of South San Francisco, formed the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP. STOPPP holds ajoint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These guidelines are regulated by the SSFMC, General Plan, or other best management practices guidelines. Construction activities would continue to be required to comply with the N PDES general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which BMPs would be implemented to control stormwater during construction, including silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. Compliancewith existing regulations would ensurethat development under the Station Area Plan would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this impact will not be analyzed in the forthcomi ng E I R. City of South San Francisco 27 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) substantially deplete g roundwate r supplies or interfere substantially El El ® El with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifervolume or lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wellswould drop to a level that would not support existing land usesor planned usesfor which permitshave been granted)? Discussion The proposed project is located in the Westside Groundwater Basin. The project site is currently de/doped with urban uses and rede/dopment in the planning area would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces that would interfere with groundwater recharga Future de/dopment in the planning area would not directly utilize groundwater. The planning area would continue to receive its water supply from the California Water Service Company(CWSC). The CWSC prepared and adopted the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in June 2011. Groundwater has historically supplied 10 to 15 percent of the District's water demand. The CWSC would continue to monitor groundwater levels and participate in regional evaluations of the Westside Groundwater Basin to estimate its safe yield and ensure that groundwater supplies are not substantially depleted. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this impact will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orarea, El El ® El including through the alteration of the course of a stream orriver,in a manner that would result in substantial erosion orsiltation on oroff site? (d) sabstantiallyalterthe existing drainage pattern of the site orarea, El El ® El including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a mannerthat would result in flooding on oroff site? Discussion Colma Creek is the City's main natural drainage system. A small area along the southern boundary of the project area is adjacent to Colma Creek; however, Colma Creek does not intersect the planning area and future de/dopment of the Station Area Plan would not alter the course of Colma Creek or any other waterway. Surface and stormweter runoff from the planning area is collected by the City's storm drainage system. The existing storm drai nage system in the project area is designed to accommodate flows from urbanized de/dopment and takes into account the high ratio of impervious surfwes in the area The proposed project would remove Existing buildings on the site and rede/dop the area with similar uses. The ratio of impervious surface area would be similar to existing conditions, thereby not increasing runoff or stormwater flows over existing conditions. During construction, erosion and run-off would be controlled through required compliance with the NPDES general permit for construction activities, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 28 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION XHyd rology/Water Quality including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant Less-Than- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Create orcontribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity ❑ ® ❑ of existing or planned stormwaterdrainage systemsor provide substantial additional sourcesof polluted runoff? Discussion As discussed in SectionsX(c-d), surface and stormwater runoff in the planning area is collected by the City's storm drainage system, which is designed to accommodate flows from urbanized development. The proposed project would redevelop the area with similar uses and would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces that would substantially increase stormwater flows. The exact uses of the buildings that could be developed are currently unknown, as a result potential sources of pollutants cannot be quantified. However, as identified under Section X(a), the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These guidelines are regulated by the SSFMC, General Plan, or other best management practices guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this issue wi I I not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Le%Than Potentially 9gnificant Less-Than- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion As identified under Section X(a), the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These guidelines are regulated by the SSFMC, General Plan, or other best management practices guidelines. Future development would be required to comply will all applicable regulations pertaining to water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcomi ng E I R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant Less-Than- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area asmapped on a ❑ ® ❑ federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or otherflood hazard delineation map? Discussion Portions of the planning area east of US-101, north of Amour Avenue, and south of 2nd Lane are within the 100-year flood hazard area (California DWR 2013). No residences are proposed mat of US-101; City of S3uth San Francisco 29 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality therefore, no impart would occur in this arm. High-density residential land usewould be accommodated north of Amour Avenue and south of 2nd Lane. However, consistent with General Plan Policy 8.2-1-2, the City's development review process would ensure that proposed development In the 100-year flood haeard area would provide adequate flood protection. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be addressed in the forthcoming EI R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Place within a 100-yearflood hazard area structuresthat would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? Discussion As discussed in Section X(h), portions of the planning area are within the 100-year flood haeard area However, these areas are currently developed. Redevelopment in the planning area would not result in the introduction of new structures in undeveloped floodplan areas that would substantially impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (i) Expose people orstructuresto a significant risk of loss, injury ordeath El El ® El involving flooding, including flooding asa result of the failure of a levee ordam? Discussion The planning area is not located in a potential dam failure inundation arm(ABAG 2003).As discussed in Section X(h), the City's development review process would ensure implementation Of adequate flood control for projects with the 100-year flood haeard arm Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be addressed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion A 1.5-million-g2llon storage reservoir located on the top of San Bruno Hill poses the greatest risk of seiche hazards in the planning area However, because the reservoir holds a relatively small volume of water, water released during sEiching would be largely absorbed in the vegetated hillsides. Because the hillsides are not very steep, theflow of water would not be rapid. Also,water would drain away from the hill instead of ponding and resulting in high water levels. Thus, seiche inundation imparts are considered to be less than significant in the planning area The planning area is not located in an area at risk for tsunami inundation; therefore, asignificant impact related to tsunamiswould not occur (CaliforniaEMA South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 30 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION xI Land Use/Planning et al. 2009). As discussed in Section VI I(a), the potential for inundation by mudf low is considered low because the planning area does not contain steep slopes. Hillsides surrounding the planning area are covered by development and/or landscaping. Rainfall onto these areas would encounter vegetation or impervious surfaces, and would not pose a risk of causing saturated soil to loosen and flow downhill. Thus, there would be no mudflow inundation impact on the planning area Impacts related to inundation would be lessthan significant and this issue will not be addressed in the forthcoming El R. XIJ LAND USEJ PLANNING Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ El Discussion Existing and future uses within the planning area include residential, commercial, manufacturing and research and de✓dopment activities. Rede✓dopment under the plan would be consistent with existing land uses in the planning area and surrounding area The Station Area Plan does not propose major changes to the existing circulation system, or other barriers that would divide an existing neighborhood. The proposed extension of Grand Avenue would provide an additional connection between de/dopment east and west of U&101 and the Caltrain station, including a new below-grade pedestrian path to connect Grand Avenueon either sideof U&101. Railroad Avenuewould also beextended to the east side of U&101. Additionally, streetscape improvements and new public plazas would Encourage pedestrian connections throughout the planning area The project would have no impact and this issue wi I I not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of ® ❑ El ❑ an agency with jurisdiction overthe project(including, but not limited to,the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion Although the Station Area Plan would accommodate land uses similar to those accommodated in the area under the adopted General Plan, the Station Area Plan would accommodate higher intensities throughout the plan area Once adopted, the Station Area Plan would bethe applicable land use plan for the area The projects consistency with applicable adopted land use planswill be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. City of SDuth San Francisco 31 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION MI Mineral Resources Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion As discussed in IV(e), the proposed project is not subject to any habitat conservation plans or other plans. The project would have no impact and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Result in the lossof availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ would be of value to the region and the residentsof the state? (b) Result in the lossof availability of a locally important mineral El El El resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific p la n,or othe r la nd use plan? Discussion The proposed project site is not known to halve any mineral resources that may be of value to this region or the state, including as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan (San Mateo n.d.). The project would have no impact and this issue will not be addressed in the forthcoming El R. • Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in: (a) Exposure of personsto orgeneration of noise levelsin excessof ® El El El standardsestablished in the local general plan ornoise ordinance, orapplicable standardsofotheragencies? Discussion Operation of the proposed project would have the potential to result in neN noise sources, particularly an increase in vehicular noise, that could result in noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards. This potentially significant impact will be addressed in the forthcoming El R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 32 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION XIII Noise Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Exposure of personsto orgeneration of excessive groundbome ® ❑ El ❑ vibration orgroundbome noise levels? Discussion Construction under the proposed project would have the potential to generate significant groundborne vibration. Additionally, new residences and vibration-sensitive laboratories could be exposed to vibration from existing train operations. This potentially significant impact will be addressed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levelsin the ® ❑ El ❑ project vicinity above levelsexisting without the project? Discussion Future development under the Station Area Plan would result in new vehicular trips that would have the potential to result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. This potentially significant impact wi I I be addressed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) A substantial temporary orperiodic increase in ambient noise levels ❑ ® ❑ in the project vicinity above levelsexisting without the project? Discussion Construction of future development would result in temporary increases in noise level associated with operation of construction equipment. Construction of land uses accommodated by the plan area would not take place all at once, and would spread out throughout the plan area so that limited receptorswould be exposed construction noise at any given time. Under SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d), construction activities are limited to between the hours Of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM On Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. Construction noise that occurs duri ng these hours is exempt from the noise level limits established in the City's Noise Ordinance because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noisa Consequently, the City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less than significant. Future construction under the Station Area Plan would be required to comply with all applicable City ordinances, including limitson construction hours. Therefore, impactswould be lessthan significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. City of SDuth San Francisco 33 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION XV Population/Housing Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Fora project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan hasnot been adopted,within 2 milesof a public airport or public use airport,the exposure of people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,the exposure of people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise le ve Is? Discussion The planning area is located approximately 0.75 mile from the SFI A. Due to distance and the orientation of the airport runways, the planning area is not located within the 65 dBA CN EL noise contour of the ER A (Cl CAG 2012). Noise levels of 65 dBA CN EL and below are considered compatible with residential land uses in the City's General Plan (South San Francisco n.d., Noise Element). Additionaily, the proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. N o impact would occur and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. - • - • HOUSING Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,eitherdirectly(for ® ❑ El ❑ example, by proposing new homesand businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roadsorotherinfrastructure)? Discussion The Station Area Plan would accommodate new residential, commercial, and office growth that would have the potential to directly induce growth in the City. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Displace substantial numbersof existing housing,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (c) Displace substantial numbersof people,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Some existing residences may be demolished as part of redevelopment under the Station Area Plan. However, the Station Area Plan would accommodate higher density residential development so that any South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 34 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION XV Public Services displaced housing units would be replaced within the plan area No replacement housing would be necessary outside of the planning area I mpacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcomi ng E I R. XV.! PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impactsassociated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need fornew or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in orderto maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) Fire protection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ (ii) Police protection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ (iii) Schools? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ (iv) Pa rks? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ (v) Other public facilities? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion I ntensified development accommodated by the Station Area Plan would result in additional demand for public services in the planning area This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ® ❑ El ❑ regional parksor other recreational facilitiessuch that substantial physical deterioration of the facilitywould occurorbe accelerated? (b) Doesthe project include recreational facilitiesor require the ® El El El construction orexpansion of recreational facilitiesthat might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion Implementation of the proposed project would aocommodateapproximately 1,400 new homes and 2,400 new jobs In the City. According to the City's General Plan, approximately 38.1 acres of new parkland are needed to serve the projected population for the City. The Station Area Plan would accommodate higher growth than currently projected for the arm. Therefore, the proposed project would potentially generate additional demand for parkland in the City. The proposed project would havethe potential to requirethe oonstruction or Expansion of recreational facilities. Until additional facilities in the City are oonstructed, the growth under the Station Area Plan would result in additional use of Existing City facilities and would City of SDuth San Francisco 35 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic contribute to physical deterioration. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. .O Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance,or policy establishing ® ❑ El ❑ measuresof effectivenessforthe performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modesof transportation including masstransit and nonmotorized travel and relevant componentsof the circulation system,including, but not limited to,intersections, streets, highwaysand freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and masstransit? Discussion Development under the Station Area Plan would hate the potential to generate new vehicle trips with the potential to adversely affect the existing circulation network. This potentially significant impact wi I I be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less-Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, ® ❑ El ❑ including, but not limited to,level of service standardsand travel demand measures,or other standardsestablished by the county congestion management agency fordesignated roadsor highways? Discussion In addition to the City's thresholds regarding traffic, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of San Mateo County identifies local arterial roadways as designated routes. The project may result in an increase in traffic along these routes sufficient to exceed the level of service standards established in the CMP. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in traffic levelsora change in location that resultsin substantial safety risks? Discussion The planning area is located approximately 0.75 mile north of SFIA. The entire planning area is within the FAA height notification limits and obstruction standards for the SFIA. The proposed project does South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 36 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic not propose any changes that would affect the SFO airport or flight operations and does not propose any structures of substantial height to exceed the FAA obstruction standards. FAA notification would be required for some future projects. Coordination with the FAA would ensure that substantial safety risk would not occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this issue will not be analyzed in the forthcomi ng E I R. Less-Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Sibstantially increase hazardsdue to a design feature (e.g.,sharp ❑ ® ❑ curvesor dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? Discussion Full build-out of the Station Area Plan would result in development of similar useswhich are compatible and complimentary to the existing surrounding uses in the planning area and immediately surrounding area Build-out of the Station Area Plan would not include any uses that would be hazardous to existing uses. Future project design plans would be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineering Department to ensure compliance with all vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle accessibility and design requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion As previously discussed in Section IX(g), coordination with the chief of police would ensure adequate emergency access is maintained during construction of future projects. Future site plans would be re✓ievved as part of the project approval process to ensure adequate emergency access during operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or prog rams regarding public ® ❑ F1 ❑ transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,orotherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion Future development under the area plan would result in additional vehicle trips and increase activity in the planning area such that the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities would City of South San Francisco 37 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION XVIII UtilitieslService Systems potentially be decreased. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirementsof the applicable ® ❑ El ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? (b) Require orresult in the construction of new water or wastewater ® ❑ El ❑ treatment facilitiesor expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion The South San Francisco and San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), located in South San Francisco, will serve the proposed project. The WQCP operates under NPDES No. CA0038130 and Waste D ischarge Requirements R2 2003-010. 1 n November 2011 the City updated its Sewer System Management Plan (SSM P). The SSM P included a capacity analysis for the area of the City east of US-101 and identified the capital improvements necessary to provide wastewater service to redevelopment east of U&101. Redevelopment of the planning area east of U&101 would be served by these improvements. However, the Station Area Plan would also accommodate growth west of US-101 that would exceed the existing General Plan growth projections, and was not included in the capacity analysis. Therefore, additional analysis is required to determine whether the proposed project would exceed the capacity of the City's wastewater system, including the WQCP, and require construction of new facilities. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming EI R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Require orresult in the construction of new stormwaterdrainage ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilitiesor expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion Redevelopment under the Station Area Plan will require new drainage structures and localized on-site storm drain systems. However, the amount of stormwater created in the planning area would not increase above existing conditions because the amount of impervious surfaces would be approximately the same as existing conditions. Because no additional stormwater runoff would be created, no additional stormwater would need to be accommodated in existing stormwater drainage facilities, and no expansion of stormwater drainage facilities would be warranted. I mpacts would be less than significant, and this impact will not be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 38 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION XVIII UtilitieslService Systems Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ® ❑ El ❑ existing entitlementsand resources,orare new orexpanded entitlements needed? Discussion The proposed project would result in increased demand for potable water in the planning area A water supply assessment is required to determine whether water supplies are Mailable to serve the proposed project. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment providerthat ® ❑ El ❑ servesor may serve the project that it hasadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Discussion Refer to Section XVI I I(a). Additional analysis is required to determine whether the proposed project would exceed the capacity of the City's wastewater system, including the WQCP. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Be served by a landfillwith sufficient permitted capacity to ® ❑ El ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Discussion The South San Francisco Scavenger Company (Scavenger) is contrasted by the City of South San Francisco as the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the City. Trash is ultimately transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill can accept up to 3,598 tons per day. Howe✓er, as of 2000, the landfill has exceeded its permitted capacity. A closure date is planned for 2018 (South San Francisco 2006). This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. City of SDuth San Francisco 39 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION XVIII UtilitieslService Systems Less Than Potentially significant Less-Than- significant w/Mitigation significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutesand regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City of South San Francisco is regulated by the City's SSFMC, particularly Chapters8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes quantitative disposal or recycling rates, development in the planning area would not be subject to diversion requirements. However, under the SSFMC, future development would be required to have its solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the SSFMC would be met by the Scavenger Company. The proposed project would have no impact and this issue will not be addressed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially significant Less-Than- significant w/Mitigation significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Require or result in the construction of new energy production or ® ❑ El ❑ transmission facilities,orexpansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact? Discussion Development of individual projects would be required to comply with California Code of Regulations Title24 and the California Green Building Standads Code (CALGREEN) adopted in 2010, as applicable. Compliance with these regulations would result in new development incorporating energy- saving design and construction. However, a net increase of 1,400 dwelling units and approximately 2 million sf of new employment land uses would have the potential to substantially increase energy demand in the project area and require the expansion of existing facilities. This potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 40 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts October2013 SECTION XIXMandatory Findings of significance Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Doesthe project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ® ❑ El ❑ environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species,cause a fish orwildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant oranimal community, reduce the numberorrestrict the range of rare orendangered plant oranimal,oreliminate important examplesof the major periodsof California history or prehistory? Discussion Based on the above checklist discussion, the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts with regard to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use'planning, noise, population/ housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems. An El R will be prepared to analyze and document these potentially significant impacts. Although the proposed project is not expected to reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, it does have the potential to degrade the environment. Therefore, the potential for the project to degrade the quality of the environment will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially Significant LessThan- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Doesthe project have impactsthat are individually limited,but ® ❑ El ❑ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effectsof a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effectsof past projects,the effectsof other current projects,and the effectsof probable future projects)? Discussion The potential for cumulative impacts occurs when the independent impacts of a project are combined with the impacts of related projects in proximity to the project and which, when combined with the project, result in impacts that are greeter than the impacts of the project alone. Other current and/or probable future projects, whose development, in conjunction with that of the proposed project, may contribute to potential significant cumulative impacts, are located within the project study area Some aspects of the proposed project have been identified as having the potential for significant environmental impacts. For these issues, the associated potential cumulative impacts would be analyzed and documented in the forthcoming El R. Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use/ planning, noise, population/ housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities) service systems resulting from the proposed project in conjunction with related projectswill be analyzed in the forthcoming E R. City of SDuth San Francisco 41 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SECTION XIXMandatory Findings of significance The potential for significant cumulative imparts from the other environmental issues that are not to be evaluated and documented in the E R can be assessed at this time. Cumulative impacts are concluded to be less than significant for those issues for which it has been determined that the proposed project would have no contributory impact. Environmental issues meeting this criterion include agricultural resources and mineral resources. Cumulative impacts are also concluded to be less than significant for those issues for which it has been determined that the proposed project would have a Iess-than-significant impact. Specifically, compliance with existing regulations would reduce cumulative impacts from the proposed project and cumulative projects related to geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality to a Iess-than-significant level. The project is not anticipated to result in any impact to biological resources. If an impact would occur, it would be minimal and development would comply with applicable requirements to replaoe or restore lost habitat. Therefore, only those aspects of the proposed project to be analyzed and documented in the El R, which are identified throughout this I nitial Study, may potentially result in cumulative impacts that will also be addressed in the forthcoming El R. Less Than Potentially 9gnificant LessThan- 9gnificant w/Mitigation 9gnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Doesthe project have environmental effectsthat will cause ® ❑ El ❑ substantial adverse effectson human beings,either directly or indirectly? Discussion Construction and operation of the proposed project could result in environmental effectsthat could have substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Potential effects could be associated with aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use/planning, noise, population/ housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems. These areas of potential impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming El R. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 42 City of S3uth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department SECTION 5 References October2013 SECTION XIXMandatory Findings of Significance SECTION 5. References Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG). 2003. DamFalLrelnurdirn Hazard Map fcr Sath San Frans c(Brims San BruTq October 20. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012. CafifarrraErVro rantal QLdityAd Air QudityGucdin6� May. Cal iforn i a D epart ment of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mappingand Monitoring Program (Cal i forni a D 0 C). 2011. SanMatwCartylnpotartFarrrlaTd2010, October. Cal iforn i a D epart ment of Fish and WIdIife(CID FW). 2013. Cal i forni a N at ural Diversi ty Database (accessed June 13, 2013). Cal ifornia D epartment of Forestry and Fi re Protection, Fi re and Resource Assessment Program (Cal iforni a D 0 FFP). 2003. Stated CafiforiaManagrutLa- March 3. Cal ifornia D epartment of Water Resources(Cal ifornia D WR). 2013. Best Avall able Map (BAM)Web Viewer. http://gis.bam.water.cagov/barn/ (accessed June 14, 2013). California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California(California EMA et al.). 2009. Ts wri 1r rrdicn MapfbrEnuggVFYaYing SanFrandsD Sath Qua aVe(San FrandsDBao. June 15. California Public Utilities Commission (California PUC). 2003. . sn-Martin230kV TransrissrnLine Prgat Fird EIR, October. City/County Assod at ion of Governmentsof San Mateo County(CI CAG). 2012. CanprdBiaveAirpof L ar7d U&-FYc-n fo,theErMrrns cf San Fra rm l rte-nafia-d A irpot, October. San Mateo, County of. n.d. San Mates Ca 7tyGe7ffarFYc-nBa�kgardlsses Mineral Resources. South San Francisco, City of. 2006. Ge-etah ResFrd7 andDadq rol O.elayDisfrid Exparisay Co-pa-ate FadlitiesMada-FYaI7 UprtfeDraft ErVrayrantar Inpad RW,August 23. 2011. Draft En4ro7 e tal 1 npad RW fo'El Canino Rad/ChelnLt A wnt,eA raa FYan, and assxiatal Ge-a d FYan A rrerxiet, and Zon rig Orcir A rrexivit, M ay. n.d. Cityd Sath SanFrandsoGe7ffar FYaln. http://www.ssf.net/ indecgpx7 J I D=360(accessed June 13, 2013). U.S Geological Survey(USGS). n.d. Paleontology in the San Francisco Bay Region. http://geomapswr.usgs.gov/sfbay/paleo.html (accessed June 12, 2013). n.d. Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area http://geomapswr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/ Iiquefa:;tion/susceptibility.html (accessed June 13, 2013). City of SDuth San Francisco 43 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Economic and Community Development Department Initial Study October2013 SECTION 5 References SECTION XIXMandatory Findings of Significance [THISPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 44 City of SDuth San Francisco Initial Study Economic and Community Development Department Appendix A CNDDB Results m O (U O a3 O a) a3 C O C a3 O C -O C C O O Q Q X C Q C (B C -p o O O (C a V L N P L O O M O U () CL a3 a3 O p :3 L Co � i O C i Q � E a O N m N m � -0 m LL m a) � — O c C a3 C 2 C C C � � � C. a3 O a3 o :3 cc ,� O a3 a3 O U O E i 3 Q co fA C/) cA C/) O Z cn cn Z > (n (n m Q O M � � N O 'U N v c C13 E E E E E E U U Uc Uc Uc � c � c � c N (n a3 (n a3 (n a3 (n a3 (n a3 (n a3 LL w aLL aLL aLL a_ LL a_ LL aLU N � E a 0 o Q o 0 0 0 (a U a) N y c N o �C �C �C �C E 2 2 2 2 a) a) a) LQ E E E V cc cc cc cc 0 U a p a C (a ai p o o 6 a^ -2 o 0 o o :3 a)) Co m o 2 a) Q Q C O C LL Cc °n p U)� N c LL a) C13 ca ° 4 .S is C13 m C o > a3 O D O°)(o aa) O o � c O a3 E °L °° a) (a E a O ai:o is .cz a °o 2 ai y C a) > c E v c c o a3 ° C m O ° O '> O C a) a3 -O .0 C >, a cL a�i °° °C (a ? a3 U C13 a c ° v a) ° U a) °c > C is a) a) 0 O ao>3 C a) a) a3 a3 O o C U o LL z d a� co LL a U) (n () m u � N t U z z z z z z z 3 a) p a) a) a) a) > c) 0 > � y C C C C U O C Z Z 0 —i O o —i O L d c U L a_ E N O a°i a°i E c v (° 7 7 °C' a z z z z w 0 w ° o O o cm cm cm c 3 a) a) O o Z Z ° U W W W W O _T N 'C a a) C E cc a N � (a � P E � c N c U m ao Q C U a Q m a CL y O G) w N y t ca � '� 'y `� Cn o U Oi i U R U (a U m U _0 M 'U -� (a 7 d L y '� a) C C cA d a) -O O- Q i (� '� -°)� (°-� .U .° o w LL Y E m a E o O z co >V a3 :3 a :3 Q Z3 .p O Q CO U a c m m LU O U w a) a) O C13 N cc O a) -O o U E p o a) c = to O C Z O O to Q cc J G O m C c i c m C C c —Y c 'ia) Cn c 0 m L.c L m C c fO A c 0 a) O N O a) c N C o m itO o n m iO 0 -0 =cc :3 a3 a3 -O c c i -0 3 a3 m Co O O CO O O O C a3 > C13 an i a) 0 0 N O � O 3 0 E c c -0 c o O Q c = o O ( C i C13 cc i j 6 6 j CC Co C C 0 E L > c o � 0 C) C/) � o aa 00 OC12 OC12m T M � � O E E E E E E N v —> 0 a3 O c c c c c c � H ai ca a3 a3 a3 a3 ca U i x x x x x x o x aw aw aw aw a_ w aw aw E O U O a o U c a) a) a) a) 0 U) a o °—' °—' _ a3 E E E E w N a s E E cy co N V a3 0 0 0 0 U. � - a Ea) a) =6 C13 U � � U) O N OU > N O Q O O (n a3 N ° o is � 'R ° ca ccc � '� E 2 c a � tea) � U) _ pa) U) cc � � a� O a3 a) E ° o o C) .� � a) _ � D q •� o = o o in is cc cc ° O c a w a3 > cn U) Q �' a) o o a) E � 'Q a) N O).� -O O U 0 0 7 O c fA N > �_ a3 E -O .S N C Q N CC 0 0 7 " O 'O O (- �+ a3 `� (B -O O 2i � Lm O OO � � O C > c O a) U) a3 O O to O �O Q O U O a3 >''O N E U aS Cf).O Q a) O) a) lf) 0 Z CO) a) .O c O ' O O cc -O > -O '� O O Q C cB .0 O ~ c 0 (B6 'O a3 O- O U U O 7- E (�6 'O I cr.; Q (A a) c = O cc � O E Cn to a3 O 0 0 Co Co O 0 0 Q D 'O C m ca 0),R U 0) m .� U C)i U U o O o -0 u � N Z ¢ N N 17 N N 17 U Z m m m m m m 3 N s U) c c c c c c c � U z° z° z° z° z° z° z° 0 '� a? a) cm v h � a a 0 0 0 0 0 z z z w z z w Q c O c y � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 -� o z z z z z z w v ° o C) U o Oo a v o '� o �' o o U U t2 K •� y is v a) m a) a) m c .� a U .C) .� �, a) m O c U = O c +O co ca .c0 ca y ca U C13 m U C h N .0 O CY.) m N 0 .i Ll = Ll 0 B6 m N N a E a3 y c O c c c) o c c > ,� � c � O J CL 000 I..L Q D � 2 w Q co U Cn 0 F- � Q O '� ° 0 -0 3 \ \ o \ 2 5 \ y < \ § $ c) S c) a / - u - E � R : - u ® = y § _ \ i / ` ® c ] sI k/ 35 / [ $ 2 e G s o $ 0 / « / o { \ ; o e \ [ j ® / $ o : \ o 8 >2 ) uog \ G & 2 \ © / ) ) - / / o E ~ / / < © § / / ■ & yuo § Eo §/ ® / D 3@ ® J { 3 0 m / 6eae ■ 27 - Ej2 ■ § � / / 0 : 2 U s » ° ° © ° R : & 7zpK 2 ° \ j d � » « 2 / » 2 < oID / / ° 0 gg \ / / \ ( � \ D- E - 0 2 = J )\ \ a g / - s u e \) D- 2 / 00 - osC k ^ ( � \ s U k \ ƒo j 5 005 U -0 = / \ / \ \ U- u 0 5j § \ \ (D U) � \ � \ ± / / /D bg C) \ s C c © ° k \ ) J } \\ � \ { / { s > 0 © ° ® t / : y \ 4 3 0 0 2 2 003 2E% 0 ■ b s = ± 7 / ° " > > J ® (1) 0 E { o / / \ » -- ®. a e / 5 / } \\ \ / / 2 - s { 3 \ ( $ \ \ � a m I Q 0 \\ 2 5 6 : - E 2 k \ { / E / @j ) \ / ®2z / s 2 $ \ § o ) f \ � / ® \ \ ) \ \ \ \ 00 / tt = o - % u6u ± E3 « 0 d3 d a /j r /�, %,✓, // o, r.„r/i /, r / r /,!ac,�i fir,/',: J'r r r / � r / r / r i r r / , a r/ rr / , / r r ,i ,,,.i / r/f� 1, ,..// ...n, ✓r _.. / / ,,, r ri/..... i// .w,._. ,. ., %��� �%,� �,/ /✓/rr �/,r(� , /,%/Ji ri/ ,, l/�//r,,%rr iii lliD.-'is'! �� /„',�J� �, ,,,. : .,� �,.�ri % ��%/�lrl/�/� /�i l✓.y hrii - ,// ,i�J ,,,s f�L.l/ ,� r,,4i° r,-�'/�r / ,�r 9J�i/ r (i,fie ,,. 9:I, r �// , 1/. ��- -✓ ,a r ,, i, �' J � / 111 it /f / J Jt ,, J�/r/.� „ ,. „-✓/ � r . P r;/����%�✓/„ w!, r 0//%,r r�r ,�j�l; ,, /0 r l� OJli/�///��,;-r t'„ t� r i j�r fir/ San'fran sca owl” plover aillfornla dappe(rall r nei a Alameda artedarson Sparrow San "r o gnake arter s ' N,4* INfernr OP�r tall +� ► Ala ago” a rra +r fvfhfoe SouthSan Francisco Downtown StationStudyArea bat I SouthSan Francisco Downtown StationStudyArea_lMileBuffer DOEEC'Kvo3124 I Plant F—]Animal I Terrestrial Multiple Occurances �.6 o War/'r�%„0 25 0.5 1 rr "i"911.6, U % Maes lmage gc!urtesy+af,USGS 2013 Microsoft Corporation 2410 NAWTEG Source:CNDDB,Jun 2013 FIGURE 1 ATKINS Tf of jtjd !Tgf djf t !P ddvsf odf t 211138656 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan r�aor�onoamre��ro�rne�r�narole�a-a,re�m 00027545 s.say F—DTS—ism;d-,thS-F—,,s,000w.t...-t a—cm B—d