Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutISND 901 Larch CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 901 LARCH AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAFT INITIAL STUDYAND NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94083 www.ssf.net PREPARED BY: KNAPP PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Allisonknappconsulting.com February 5, 2016 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 901 LARCH AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAFT INITIAL STUDYAND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Submitted to: STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 Submitted by: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Ms. Adena Friedman, Senior Planner 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94083 February 5, 2016 TC ABLE OF ONTENTS C P HAPTERAGE C1: LF 1-1 HAPTEREGISLATIVE RAMEWORK 1.1Initial Study/Legislative Framework 1-1 1.2Project Applicant/Team/Contact1-2 1.3Documents Incorporated by Reference 1-3 1.4City of South San Francisco Project Review Process 1-3 1.5Standard Conditions of Approval Required by Law Addressing Envir1-4 Impacts 1.6Environmental Determination 1-13 C2:PD2-1 HAPTERROJECT ESCRIPTION 2.1Project Location and Setting 2-1 2.2Proposed Project 2-4 2.3Environmental Mitigation Measures Proposed as Part of the Project2-6 2.4General Plan and Zoning 2-16 2.5Required Entitlements 2-16 C3:EC 3-1 HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.1Aesthetics3-2 3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources 3-9 3.3Air Quality 3-11 3.4Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-20 3.5Biological Resources 3-26 3.6Cultural Resources 3-40 Geology and Soils 3-7 3-42 3-8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-55 3-9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-61 3-10 Land Use and Planning 3-67 3-11 Mineral Resources3-69 3-12 Noise 3-70 3-13 Population and Housing 3-80 3-14 Public Services3-82 3-15 Recreation 3-84 3-16Transportation and Traffic3-85 3-17 Utilities and Service Systems 3-88 3-18 Mandatory Findings of Significance and Summary of Findings3-93 LF IST OF IGURES Chapter 2 Project Description Figure 1 Project Area 2-2 Figure 2 Project Site and Vicinity 2-3 Figure 3 Site Plan and Approximate Location of Sound Barrier and 2-4 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist Figure 1 Aesthetics Back Wall of Multi-Family 3-3 Figure 2 Single-Family Northwest of Project 3-4 Figure 3 Single-Family Adjacent to project with Project in Foreground 3-4 i AA PPENDIX A-1 AQ IR UALITY Construction and Operational Emission Modeling, RCH Group. November 2015. CalEEmod Output Files, RCH Group. November 2015. A PPLICANT Environmental Mitigation Measures [proposed by Applicant], Vinal Nand. December 2, 2015. B IOLOGY Michael Marangio, Biological Resources Assessment Prepared for Allison Knapp Wolla Consulting, Proposed Residence, 901 Larch Avenue, South San Fran. November 10, 2015. G EOLOGY Applicants Reports-GeoTrinity GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, California. May 1, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Supplemental Letter for May 2015 Report and August 6, 2015 Plans. August 18, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Response to Peer Review Letter. September 23, 2015. City Peer Review-Cotton Shires Associates Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenue. May 26, 2015. Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenue. October 2, 2015. ii 1 I NTRODUCTION 1.1IS/LF NITIAL TUDYEGISLATIVE RAMEWORK This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the Cali Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resourcesections21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Reg sections15000 et seq., as amended(CEQA Guidelines). This Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with demolition, grading, construction,and future occupancy of the Project which includes any reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the Project in its entirety. CEQA (PRC section 21065) defines a Project as: An activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environme the following: a)An activity directly undertaken by a public agency. b)An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole , through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of a or more public agencies. c)An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, p certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more agencie The Applicant is seeking design review entitlement as well as grading and building permits in order to construct a single-family detached residence at 901 Larch Avenue in South San Francisco, California.Other required permits may include an encroachmentpermit to conduct work in the public right-of-way to construct curb and gutter, and potential street repairs as may be required on Larch Avenue. The proposed project (Project) meets criteria c, identified above, and therefore is considered a project under CEQA. Because the Project requires discretionary design review entitlements, environmental review is required by CEQA. Unless exempted, preparation of an environmental analysis and subsequent environmental determinatioquired prior to or simultaneously with entitlement review. Environmental review do approval, but is an independent analysis of potential Project im The Lead Agency may, after review of the entirety of the record, find that the environmental analysis is adequate and approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the Project based upon environmental and merits review. The Lead Agency for this document is the City of South San Franc Commission will hold a study session to take public comments and will make the final 901LA–C1ISP1-1 ARCH VENUE HAPTER OF NITIAL TUDYAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION determination on the environmental documentand on the discretionary entitlements. These actions will take place in legally-noticed public hearings. Typically,the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone with utilities and infrastructure in place is categorically exempt from the CEQA re CEQA Guidelines section 15303, Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small St However,there are exceptions to exemptions as stated in CEQAGuidelines section 15300.2,subsection (a). Subsection (a) clearly states Class 3 exemptions are qualified b would be located. The subsection further notes a project that initself is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive Therefore, if a project might be located in a biological habitat, or on steep or potentially unstable slopes, or on properties known to have environmental contamination (hazardous , the exception to the exemption noted above requires the lead agency to conduct an initial study, which may be satisfied by utilizing the sample forms provided in Appendices G and H of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project site contains several geological constraints, including a very steep slope, shallow slope instability on-site (i.e., two-foot deep and six-foot wide earthflow scars) and another off- site, and an upslope fill prism. The site is also adjacent to Sign Hill, a known biological resource within the City of South San Francisco. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has prepared an initial study for the Project, based upon the known geotechnical constraints, along with unknown and potential biological issues. Therefore, this Initial Study is prepared for City Project Number P15-0037, located at 901 Larch Avenue in South San Francisco, California (APN: 012-015-020). The Project would include the construction of a 2,500 square foot single-family residence (inclusive of a two-car garage) on a 7,500 square foot lot. The lot contains a 44.7% slope (Architectural Plans, Sections and Details, Sheets A1-A6, GeoTrinity Consultants, April 21, 2015). 1.2 PAT/LAT ROJECT PPLICANT EAMEAD GENCY EAM PAAT ROJECT PPLICANT ND EAM The property owner and applicant (Applicant)is Mr. Vinal Nand. Mr. Vinal Nand 585 Villa Street, #10 Daly City, CA 94014 (650) 455-6374 The consulting team for the Applicant is GeoTrinityConsultants, Inc. Mr. Jerry Yang is the representative for GeoTrinity. Mr. Jerry Yang, P.E. G.E. 7770 Pardee Lane, Suite 101 Oakland, CA 94621 (510) 383-9950 P1-2901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION LAECT EAD GENCY AND NVIRONMENTAL ONSULTANT EAM The Lead Agency for this Initial Study is the City of South San Francisco (City). The administrative record for the Project is on file at the Citys P person has been assigned as the custodian and Case Planner/Proje Agency: Ms. Adena Friedman, Senior Planner Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8535 The Lead Agencys Environmental Consultant is Knapp Planning and Environmental Consulting,represented by Ms. Allison Knapp. Allison Knapp Wollam, Environmental Consultant 511 Linden Street, Suite B San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 902-3238 Allison Knapp will serve as Project Manager, preparer of the initial study, andrepresent the CEQA document in all hearings and meetings. The air quality, greenhouse gas, hazard risk, and noise assessments will be prepared by Mr. Paul Miller and Mr. Mike Ratte of the RCH Group. Mr. Michael Marangio of Marangio Biological Consulting will conduct the biological resource assessment and Mr. Aaron Stessman of CSS Environmental Consultants will serve as th hazards and hazardous materials consultant. 1.3 DIBR OCUMENTS NCORPORATED Y EFERENCE AND IAA NCLUDED IN PPENDIX AQ IR UALITY Construction and Operational Emission Modeling, RCH Group. November 2015. CalEEmod Output Files, RCH Group. November 2015. APM PPLICANTS ROPOSED ITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Mitigation Measures [proposed by Applicant], Vinal Nand. December 2, 2015. B IOLOGY Michael Marangio, Biological Resources Assessment Prepared for Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting, Proposed Residence, 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, Calif. November 10, 2015. 901LA–C1LFP1-3 ARCH VENUE HAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORKAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION G EOLOGY Applicants Reports GeoTrinity GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, California. May 1, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Supplemental Letter for May 2015 Report and August 6, 2015 Plans August 18, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Response to Peer Review Letter. September 23, 2015. City Peer Review Cotton Shires Associates Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenu. May 26, 2015. Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenue. October 2, 2015. 1.4CSSFPR ITY OF OUTH AN RANCISCO ROJECT EVIEW P ROCESS As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply with feder, and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the matter of demolition, grading,and/or building permit issuance,or the permits will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. As such, these requirementspart of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement levied through CEQA review. The Citys project processing requires that applications for projects are f Citys Technical Advisory Group (TAG). TAG is comprised of repr Building, Police, Fire, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Wtrol. TAG review identifies changes and additions to a project that are required for the project to comply with local, state,and federal laws that are implemented through the Citys Municip Citys Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to the applicant identifying the changes in project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with p pursuant to site development, construction,and land use. The applicant is requestedto revise the plans and supporting documentation or the application may not be certified as complete. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the Planning Direcirculated to all affected City departments and divisions in order to evaluate the application in light of earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can be certified complete as well as identification of the recommended Conditions of Approval (COAs) that would be required should the Project be approved by the Planning Commission. Many of these COAs implement environmental mitigation measures that were historically identified through the environmental review process and now have become a part of the Citys legislative requirements, through its general, specific and/or area plans, municipal code, special district regulations, or memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power). After a project application is complete it is subject to environ, and discretionary review through and by the Citys Planning Commission and/or City Council, depending upon P1-4901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION the type of project, as defined by the Citys Municipal Codeand state law. The COAs identified through staff review of the project, and any additional ones ide process become required of the project as a matter of law pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Prior to the City issuing a building, grading,and/or demolition permit,all City departments and divisions (identified above) review the project identified COAs and any additional conditions added pursuant to the public review process. Permits are not issued by the Citys Building Division in the absence of authorization from City staff or in the absence of the identified requirements being incorporated into the Project plans. 1.5 SPCR TANDARD ROJECT ONDITIONS EQUIRED BY ELAE XISTING AWTHAT DDRESSESNVIRONMENTAL I SSUES The following project requirements are designed and implemented as part of the Project Description to reduce environmental impacts and are required through the City of South San Franciscos standard review and permitting procedures. There, these measures are not separately identified as mitigation measures in this Initial Study. Failure of the Applicant to meet the required measures and/or elements of their Project Description relating to environmental issues could result in environmental impacts and require subsequent or supplemental CEQA review. In summary, the Project as proposed coupled with the Project requirements is the baseline from which environmental impacts are evaluated for the Project as described in Chapter 2 (Project Description). 1. A ESTHETICS ALG:Project signage is required to be reviewed by staff, and, in ESTHETICS IGHT AND LARE some instances, the Citys Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Lighting, size color, placement, design, and compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured through this process. The Citys sign regulations as set forth in Chapter 20.360 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code are intended to preserve and improve appearance, protect from visual clutter and blight, protect property values and enhance community appearance, minimize diversion of vehicle operators attention, and safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare. Potential environmental impacts and the need,or lack thereof,for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Sign Permit procedure. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. Projects are reviewed by the Citys Design Review Board consisti and landscape architects. The Planning Commission, and in some cases the City Council, adds design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state o addressed through the CEQA process. 2. AQGGE IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS AQDC:All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay IR UALITY UST ONTROL Area Air Quality Management Districts (BAAQMD) dust control mea are imposed by the Citys Engineering Division on all projects as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or City consultants. The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures, Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures,and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD as of May 2011. The City requires projects to: 901LA–C1LFP1-5 ARCH VENUE HAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORKAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION a)Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b)Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials,or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c)Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction s d)Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e)Sweep streets (with wet power vacuum sweepers),if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets,at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. f)Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previous graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g)Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h)Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i)Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j)Watering should be used to control dust generation during the br-up of pavement. k)Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. l)Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m)Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. n)All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers specifications. All equipment shall be checked b and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation. o)Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling fre than five minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. p)Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. q)All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour and slower, should wind and dust conditions necessitate. r)All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be comp possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after, unless seeding or soil binders are used. s)Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as require airborne toxic control measure detailed in Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding this requirement shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. P1-6901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION t)Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to cont regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take c twenty-four (24) hours. The applicable Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. AQTAC: The potential for toxic air contaminants IR UALITY OXIC IR ONTAMINANTS (asbestos and lead-based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated an through the Citys Building Division in compliance with federal, local and BAAQMD regulations in particular BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 pertaining to asbestos. The BAAQMD regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures that m manufacture of materials known to contain asbestos. The BAAQMD shall be notified at least 10 business days before: (1) Any renovation involving the removal of 100 square feet or more, 100 linear feet or more, or 35 cubic feet or more of asbestos; and (2) Every d 1 regardless of asbestos content. 1 The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 61, Subpart M, National Emissions Standards for Hazardo Pollutants (NESHAP) and Federal Occupational Safety and Health A- containing material (ACM) as any material or product that contai greater than 1% asbestos. Nonfriable ACM is classified by NESHAP as either Category I or Category II materia: Category I  asbestos- containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor coverings, and aspCategory II  all remaining types of nonfriable asbestos-containing material not included in Category I that when dry, ca pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Regulated asb-containing material (RACM), a hazardous waste when friable, is classified as any material that contains greater than 1 % asbestos by dry weight and is: Friable: or Category I material that has become friable; or Category I ma subjected to sanding grinding, cutting or abrading; or Category II nonfriable material that has a high probability Activities that disturb material containing any amount of asbestos are subject to certain requirements of the Cal/OSHA asbestos standard contained in Title 8, CCR Section 152 Typically, removal of disturbance of more than 100 square feet of material containing more than 0.1% asbestos m abatement contractor, but associated waste labeling is not requi When the asbestos content of a material exceeds 1%, virtually all requirements of the standard bec Materials containing more than 1% asbestos are also subject to N RACM (friable ACM and nonfriable ACM that will become friable duing demolition operations) must be removed from buildings prior to demolition. Certain nonfriable ACM and materials containing 1% or less asbes remain in buildings during demolition: however, there are waste rk requirements that may make it cost ineffective to do so. Contractors are responsible for segregating and characterizing waste streams prior to disposal. With respect to potential worker exposure, notification, and regfines asbestos- containing construction material (ACCM) as construction material CCR 341.6). For a solid waste containing lead, the waste is classified as Ca equals or exceeds the respective Total Threshold Limit Concentrat (Mg/kg); or 2) the soluble lead content equals or exceeds the re (STLC) of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) based on the standard Waste Extraction Test (WET). A waste has the potential for exceeding the lead STLC when the wastes total lea respective STLC value since the WET uses a 1:10 dilution ratio. Hence, when total lead is detected at a concentration greater than or equal to 50 mg/kg, and assuming th 901LA–C1LFP1-7 ARCH VENUE HAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORKAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION The BAAQMD allows a shorter notification period for certain structures. Th BAAQMD may be notified 72 hours in advance of demolition with the payment o applications to demolish residential buildings of four or fewer BAAQMD issues a J Number or J Permit to the applicant and in turn tcant presents J Number/Permit to the Citys Building Division as a condition of demolition permit (Jim Kirkman, (then) Chief Building Official, meeting with Allison Knapp, October, 16, 2008 and Phil Perry, Senior Building Inspector, telephone conversation January 21, 2016). The purpose of the permitting process is to assure that compliance with procedures that assure asbestos is not released The J-Number/Permit is required to be posted on the job site. Through this process, the BAAQMD and the Citys Building Division ensure that asbestos is handled, removed, encapsulated, and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite to p environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. Lead contamination is regulated through a myriad of laws on the Lead is a pollutant regulated by many laws administered by the E Agency (EPA), including the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X), Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) among others. Lead is also regulated by many California laws including the tra programs and certification of individuals that conduct lead-related construction activities (California Health & Safety Code 105250). The California Labor Code 6716 to 6717 establishe standards that protect the health and safety of employees who engage in le-related construction work, including construction, demolition, renovatio. lead analysis is required.Lead-containing waste is classified as resource, Conservation, and Ry Act (RCRA) hazardous, or Federal hazardous, when the soluble lead content e mg/l based on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TC The above regulatory criteria are based on chemical concentrations. Wastes may also be classified as hazardous based on other criteria such as ignitability; however, for the p concentrations) is the primary factor considered for waste classgenerated during the construction activities would not likely warrant testing for ign Waste that is classified as either California hazardous or RCRA hazardous requires managemen Potential hazards exist to workers who remove or cut through LCP coatings during demoliti Dust containing hazardous concentration of lead may be generated during scraping-containing paint. Torching of these materials my produce lead oxide fumes. Therefore, air monitoring and/or respiratory protection may be required during the demolition of materials co Guidelines regarding regulatory provisions for construction work where workers may be exposed to Title 8, CCR, Section 1532.1. P1-8901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION California Health & Safety Code 17961, 17980, 124130, 17920.10deems a building to be in violation of the State Housing Law if it contains lead hazards, and requires loca agencies to enforce provisions related to lead hazards and criminalizes specified acts related to lead hazard evaluation, abatement, and lead-related constructions unless certified or accredited by the California Departmentof Public Health Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch. The law permits local enforcement agencies to order the abatement of lead cease and desist order in response to lead hazards. Chapter 3, Air Quality describes many of the laws implemented through the air district. The removal of buildings suspected of lead based paints (typical constructed prior to 1978 when laws were promulgated to remove lother volatile organic compounds) requires surveys and removal of lead-based paints by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to prote health and safety. The City Building Division requests information and certification from persons applying for demolition, scaffolding and building permits (Jim Kirkman, previous Building Official, October 16, 2008). AQVE: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle IR UALITY EHICLE MISSIONS emissions is regulated to some extent by the Citys Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, contained in Chapter 20.400 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Table 20.400.003 in the South San Francisco Municipal Code establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicltrips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative (mode shift) use for all projects is twenty-eight percent below standard trip rates modeled for the project without TDM measures in place. Projects with an increased FAR are required to increase their alt use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement.. AQHE: The BAAQMD adopted Regulation 6, Rule 3: Wood- IR UALITY EARTH MISSIONS Burning Devices, to reduce the harmful emissions that come from wood smoke. The R requires cleaner-burning (e.g., natural gas or propane) U.S. EPA-certified stoves and inserts in new housing construction. SSFCAP: The City adopted a Climate Action Plan OUTH AN RANCISCO LIMATE CTION LAN (CAP) on February 12, 2014. The CAP identifies strategies and actions to reduce gre gas (GHG) emissions by 15 percent below baseline (2005) levels by 2020. The City has and continues to implement GHG reduction measures. Some examples include the installation of solar facilities at City buildings; requiring bioswales in private development; adopting and enforcing a construction and demolition waste recycling ordinance; adopting and implementing a TDM program, and providing electrical car charging stations at City facilities. The City actively participates in the San Francisco International Airport noise in reduces heat loss and hence GHG emissions in older buildings. The City also spearheads educational programs to reduce GHG emissions.Through conditions of approval, development projects are required to implement a variety of GHG reduction me include use of renewable and alternate energy including solar an facilities, water conservation, and waste reduction. 3. GS EOLOGY AND OILS CBSCT24: All construction projects are required ALIFORNIA UILDING TANDARDS ODE ITLE to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), as periodically amended. Design 901LA–C1LFP1-9 ARCH VENUE HAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORKAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION specifications are identified and required for projects located on sites subject to liquefaction, differential settlement, and severe groundshaking. These requirementsare enforced and monitored by the Citys Engineering Division. Compliance with the CBC is also implemented and monitored by the CitysBuilding Division. GSGR:The City Engineering Division also requires EOLOGY AND OILS EOTECHNICAL EPORTS geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for project land, for demolition and rebuilding and for additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading (Sam Bautista, City Engineer, meeting July 22, 2009; conditions of project approval, see Chapter 3, Geology and Soils; and SSFMC20.170.002). The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The geotechnical reports address design and construction specifications for the project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastruct, and placement and building design. The geotechnical reports are peer reviewed by the Citys geotechnical consultant, and are modified as recommended by the Citys consultant. Geotechnical approval by the Citys geotechnical consultant and the City is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical professional of project drawings. The Citys geotechnical consultant provides construction inspecti oversight and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Divisionnts and monitors this requirement. 4. HM AZARDOUS ATERIALS Properties suspected of containing hazardous materials, due to t,are required by local, state, and federal law to undergo site characterization and if necessar remediation. Permits from the South San Francisco Fire Department, San Mateo County Environmental Health Division (SMCEHD), and/or BAAQMD are required. The following table identifies thestandard, industry-accepted protocol for site characterization and remediation. Media Hazardous Materials Approach Reuse on Site (if concentration is less than 100 ppm). Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Fuels Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill. Capping and vapor barrier. Treat on site (see below). Consult the SMCEHD for requirements. Soil Remediation (ex-situ) Volatile Organic Haul and Dispose. Compounds Aeration  requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily (VOCs) (gasoline volumes are limited. fuels, solvents) Vapor Stripping  apply vacuum system to covered piles, notify BAAQMD. Bioremediation - apply bio-treatment materials, moisture and work soil piles. Thermal Desorption  various vendors provide mobile treatment units. Capping and vapor barrier. Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. Soil Remediation Inorganics Haul and Dispose. (ex-situ) (metals) Chemical Stabilization. P1-10901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION Media Hazardous Materials Approach Sorting reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant particle size. Consult SMCEHD for requirements. Soil Remediation VOCs Soil Vapor Extraction  apply vacuum to vapor wells, (in-situ) notify BAAQMD. In-situ chemical oxidation. In-Situ Vitrification  use electricity to melt waste and surrounding soils. Consult SMCEHD for requirements. Soil Remediation Semivolatile Organic Bioremediation  saturate soils with bio-treatment Compounds (in-situ) materials. (SVOCs) Chemical Stabilization  saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants. In-Situ Vitrification. Capping. If contaminants are detected in the 20-foot below Groundwater -InvestigationAll ground surface soil sample an additional boring should be completed to groundwater. Analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil. Report results to the SMCEHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for requirements. Groundwater Remediation VOCs Pump and Treat  pump from wells, treat and discharge treated water. Air Sparging  inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural bioremediation. Generally applied in conjunction with Soil Vapor Extraction to control released volatiles. Bioremediation  inject bio-treatment materials into affected groundwater. Chemical Oxidation  inject oxidation chemicals into affected groundwater. Consult BAAQMD for requirements. Groundwater Remediation SVOCs Pump and Treat. Bioremediation. Chemical Oxidation. Consult BAAQMD for requirements. Groundwater Remediation Inorganics Pump and Treat. Chemical Immobilization  inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles. 5. HWQ YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY HWQ:The following is a summary of applicable requirements YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY in Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permi Permit or MRP). 901LA–C1LFP1-11 ARCH VENUE HAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORKAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION All projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to t-specified amount of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotr (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm dra. However, biotreatment will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration,and evapotranspiration are infeasible at a project site. Vault-based treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids MRP). Projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of i auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and/or surface parking are required to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement appliesto uncovered parking that is stand-alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structure, uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.1 of the MRP). For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet is the regional threshold for requiring low impact development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatme have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent pra The new requirements are built into the following (see below) standard requirements. HWQSRP YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY TORMWATER UNOFF REVENTION (O): All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide PERATIONAL Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires t implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new devel as part of its storm water management program, as levied through requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Qu Divisions. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, soliagement, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measure and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occu quality protection measures include: a)Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasi pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, tu natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (g mulch. b)Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material fo medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltra feasible. c)Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration, and retention/detention basins into the site plan as feasible. P1-12901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION d)Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, st applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the a has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural t contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be design. e)Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the Ci system and harvesting of rainwater shall occur. f)Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated strips before discharge to the Citys storm drain system. HWQSRP YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY TORMWATER UNOFF REVENTION (C): The City of South San Francisco requires, through COAs, project ONSTRUCTION compliance with the State Water Quality Control Boards general require the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water Ge a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a St Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Idethin 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is t of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Franciscos Techni within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Deparent prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implementthe Citys Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwate include: a)Identify all storm drains, drainage swales, and creeks located near construction sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabri wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches, and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow. b)Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along cur before the drain inlets. c)Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas. d)Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion co e)Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets. f)Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for ero g)Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water h)Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers streets from dirt and mud. i)Use part- and full-time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. j)Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms ar k)Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powde amounts of suspended solids. 901LA–C1LFP1-13 ARCH VENUE HAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORKAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION l)Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather. m)Use terracing to prevent erosion. n)Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operatio areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading thth season, October 15to April 15. o)Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating s such activities that are controlled and away from water courses,and perform major maintenance off-site or in designated areas only. p)Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all pain wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives, and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris d q)Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacture instructions. 6. N OISE IAN: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure NTERIOR MBIENT OISE through state law and its General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan, for projects located in the East of 101 area. A chapter of the CBC, collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for mu-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the e floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The st noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or L) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. dn The code requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or L). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of dn building permit issuance by the Citys Building Division. The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services in its Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2-1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, (General Plan, page 280) guides land use decisions based upon noise thresholds correlating to land use classifications, acoustical analyses, and mitigations. The City implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours, participates in an aircraft noise insulation program and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) airport noise planning efforts. Figure 9-1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program(General Plan, page 279) identifies the noise contours and program areafor these planning efforts. C/CAG updated the San Francisco International Airport noise impa 2012. The new boundaries for South San Francisco are on page 11 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco In P1-14901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Redwood City, Ca(Ricondo Associates, Jacobs Consultancy, Clarion Associates. October 2012) (ALUP). Therefore the maps contained in the South San Francisco General Plan must be used in conjunctionALUP. The Eastof 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for comm retail is 45 dBA, L, echoing state law. Residential land uses in the East of 101 are prohibited. eq The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division th NEAN: The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise OISE XTERIOR MBIENT OISE levels through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Chapter 8.32). The Municipal Code identifies maximum noise exposure corresponding with land use and time of day. Low density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicl restricted to 50 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial land use noise exposure is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are implemented largely through etions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Citys Fire Departments Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. The following text and table are excerpted from Section 8.32.030. (a) It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlle person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other exceed: (1) The noise level standard for that land use as specified in Table 8.32.030 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; (2) The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; (3) The noise level standard plus ten dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; (4) The noise level standard plus fifteen dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (5) The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus twenty dB for any period of time. 901LA–C1LFP1-15 ARCH VENUE HAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORKAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION Table 8.32.030 NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS Land Use CategoryTime PeriodNoise Level (dB) R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or 10 p.m.7 a.m.50 any single-family or duplex 7 a.m.10 p.m. 60 residential in a specific plan district R-3 and D-C zones or any 10 p.m.7 a.m. 55 multiple-family residential or 7 a.m.10 p.m. 60 mixed residential/commercial in any specific plan district C-1, P-C, Gateway and 10 p.m.7 a.m. 60 Oyster Point Marina specific 7 a.m.10 p.m. 65 plan districts or any commercial use in any specific plan district M-1, P-1 Anytime 70 Source: City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Construction noiseexposureis also regulated by the Municipal Code (Section 8.32.050(d), provided below). Hours of construction are exempt from the standards identifi preceding paragraph and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday t P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours oand maximum temporary noise levels may be granted by the Chief Building Official. (a) Sound Performances and Special Events. Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dB measured at a distance of fifty feet from the loudest source are exempt from this chapter when approval therefore has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity. (b) Vehicle Horns. Vehicle horns, or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall be used only when the vehicle is in a situation where life, health property are endangered. (c) Utilities and Emergencies. Utility and street repairs, street sweepers, franchised garbage services and emergency response warning noises are exempt from this chapter. (d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: P1-16901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION (1)No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. CGSBC 7. ALIFORNIA REEN TANDARDS UILDING ODE New California Green Building Code Standards became effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory and voluntary measures for residential, non-residential, and mixed use buildings are designed to reduce our carbon footprint and promote environmental sustainability; i.e., decrease impacts incumbent upon the environment resulting from human activities. The collection of regulations is contained in the California Building Standards Code. The regulations prescribe measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building constructireduce energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and to promote environmental sustainability. The Green Building Code also regulates the exposure (i.e., off gassin compounds), aerosols, and formaldehyde, and moisture and dust penetration in the use and application of building materials. Regulations address the typents, coatings, finishes, flooring (wood, carpet, particle board), and architectural finishes that are not permitted based upon the performance and potential toxicity of the substances. , as appropriate, prohibit the amount of building heat loss and light pollution incident upon adjacent properties. Standards address the use of potable, grey, and recycled water for interior and exterior, residential, and non-residential uses. Maximum Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings are also identified and apply to interior exposure levels and noise levels at property lines. Distance t additional STC ratings for buildings within prescribed proximity, and 65 dB exceedances at property lines. Amenities to support people using bicycles are identified and in, and secure lock-up areas. Provision of preferential parking spaces for low-fuel vehicles at a percentage of overall parking provided on a site is also specified. 1.6 EFPA NVIRONMENTAL ACTORS OTENTIALLY FFECTED This Initial Study evaluates the Project which is defined as tha Applicant and as modified by the City of South San Franciscos standard COAs, identified above. Therefore, any impacts identified by the following Initial Study are those that could exceed the impacts that would be mitigated by the Citys standard permitting process and as such will require additional mitigation and/or additional environmental review. Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as defined by CEQA and as described in Chapter 3, are listed below. Factors identified with shading have been determined 901LA–C1LFP1-17 ARCH VENUE HAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORKAGE C1:I HAPTER NTRODUCTION to have the potential for significant impacts as discussed in Chapter 3. These factors wouldbe addressed in an Environmental Impact Report or EIR. Factors which are unshaded have been determined to pose no potential for significant impacts. There are no potentially impacted areas therefore an EIR will no following page. Aesthetics Hazards &Hazardous Materials Public Services Agriculture & Forest ResourcesHydrology and Water QualityRecreation Air Quality Land Use and PlanningTransportation Greenhouse Gas Mineral ResourcesUtilities &Service Systems Biological Resources Noise Cumulative Impacts Cultural Resources Population &Housing Geology &Soils P1-18901LA–C1LF AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER EGISLATIVE RAMEWORK 2 PD ROJECT ESCRIPTION 2.1PLS ROJECT OCATION AND ETTING PL ROJECT OCATION The Project site is located in the northern portion of the City of South San Francisco (City), in an area known as the Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning sub area (South San Francisco , page 118, - SSF GP, 1999). The Project is in the western portion of the planning area in a single- family neighborhood known as Sterling Terrace. 901 Larch Avenue is located at the terminus of Lincoln Street where it intersects Larch Avenue. Lincoln Street is an approximate 600 foot north/south trending neighborhood street connecting to Hillside Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard provides access to both the western and eastern portion of the City. To the east, Hillside Boulevard connects to and veers south of Sister Cities Boulevard. Sister Cities Boulevard in conjunction with Airport and Oyster Point Boulevards form a leg of the Oyster Point Flyover. The Oyster Point Flyover provides access to north and southbound U.S. Highway 101, as well as the East of 101 Area. Hillside Boulevard provides access to the western and central portions of the City of local, connector and arterial streets. Hillside Boulevard intersects Chestnut Avenue. Chestnut Avenue turns into Westborough Boulevard when it crosses El Camino Real. Westborough Boulevard provides access to Interstate 280, Skyline Boulevard and the City of Pacifica. Hillside Boulevard also forms the boundary between the Town of Colma and South San Francisco approximately 1,000 north of the Project site (Google Earth, 2015). Sign Hill abuts the Project site to the southeast. The northern and northeastern facing slopes of Sign Hill, consisting of approximately 46 acres, are in private ownership. Sign Hill Park is located on the south facing slopes of the hill, is owned by the City and is public park and recreation land. Sign Hill Park consists of 27 acres of open space with approximately two miles of hiking trailSign Hill is home to the Mission Blue and Callippee Silverspot Butterflies both federally listed endangered species. The park gets its name from the sign, South San Francisco the Industrial City which was listed on the National Historic Register in 1996. The Project is on the north facing side of Sign Hill (s ee Figures 1 Project Area and 2 Project Location). Paradise Valley/Terrabay Planning Sub-Area The Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning sub-area spans the northern slope of Sign Hill to the City boundaries with the Town of Colma and City of Brisbane, and San Bruno Mountain County Park to the north; Bayshore Boulevard to the South; and Hillside School and Hillside Boulevards are within the planning area. The planning area is largely residential. Older residential development, circa 1940-50, single family development is located south of Sister Cities 901LA-C2PDP2-1 ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTIONAGE C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION and Hillside Boulevards. The townhouse, single-family detached, duplex and condominium development associated with Terrabay Phases I and II are north of Sister Cities and Hillside Boulevards. PDF1 ROJECT ESCRIPTION IGURE PA ROJECT REA The Hillside and Martin Schools are within the planning area. T 800 feet northwest and Martin School is approximately 4,000 feet souroject. Hillside School was closed in 2005. Hillside Christian Academy is at 1415 Hillside Boulevard and Mil Montessori School is located at 1400 on the north side of Hillside Boulevard. Hillside Chris Academy is approximately 350 feet northwest of the Project site.Mills Montessori School is located approximately 700 feet north of the Project site.A small pocket of commercial land useis located southeast of the Project bounded by Hillside Boulevard, North SpAvenues. Terrabay Phase III fronting Airport Boulevard is also in the planning sub area, consisting of research and development, retail and office commercial land uses. Business commercial land uses are also in the planning sub-area along Airport Boulevard. The planning sub-area includes the Terrabay Fire Station, Terrabay Recreation CenHillside Recreation Center, the Preservation Parcel associated with Terrabay Phase III now dedicated as part of San Bruno Mountain County Park, the history trail on the Terrabay Phase III site, the shared use performing arts facility located in the South Tower of Terrabay the linear park along Sister Cities Boulevard, a pocket park on Linden Avenue, and open space and recreation uses associated with the schools. Additionally, there is a proposed linear park along the PG&E transmission towers, near Pecks Lane, in the eastern portion of the planning area (SSF GP, 1999, p 175). Adjacent to the planning sub-area and within approximately 300 feet of the Project site is the parkland of Sign Hill. P2-2901LA-C2PD AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION Project Site The Project site is vacant with an approximate 44.7% slope (GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development 901 Larch Avenue California. May 1, 2015). The site measures 150 feet in depth by 50 feet in width consisting o square feet. The site is fronted by Larch Avenue and is situated in predominately a northwest/southeast direction. Adjacent properties and boundari th northwest, a single-family mid-20 century residence on the northeast, privately owned open space 1 southeastand an undeveloped property on the southwest (see Figure 2).Multi-family housing development is adjacent to the Project area to the west. PDF2 ROJECT ESCRIPTION IGURE PSV ROJECT ITE AND ICINITY The 46 acres of land on the northeastern slopes of Sign Hill aresignated open space on the Citys 1 General Plan Land Use Map, and zoned for one unit per acre. Development on these lands would require at a minimum a biological assessment to determine if endangered or threatened s If endangered species/habitat is present the formation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) would protect habitat, require open space and direct and limit development areas to less sensitive land. 901LA–C2PDP2-3 ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTIONAGE C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION 2.2PP ROPOSED ROJECT PD ROJECT ESCRIPTION The Project proposes an approximate 2,500 square foot residence consisting of 2,038 square feet of living area and an approximate 460 square foot garage. The lot slopes uphill from Larch Avenue. The residence would consist of a partially subterranean garage, square feet and a second floor consisting of 733 square feet (Sheets A-1 and A-2, Plan Drawings, GeoTrinity, February 9, 2015). See Table 1 for setbacks and other data and Figure 3 for the site plan. rd The structure is proposed on the front 1/3 of the lot. Landscaping is proposed in the front, side and portions of the rear of the property. Planting of Japanese Maple, Winter Boxwood, Star Jasmine, camellia, and lavender are proposed. PDT1 ROJECT ESCRIPTION ABLE PD ROJECT ATA CRITERIA MEASUREMENT CITY STANDARDS Lot Coverage 18 % 50% maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.330.50 maximum Height (Maximum) 27-9.5 28 maximum Setbacks Front 15 15 minimum Side 5/5 5 minimum Rear 92.75 20 minimum PDF3 ROJECT ESCRIPTION IGURE SPAL ITE LAN AND PPROXIMATE OCATION OF SBRF OUND ARRIER AND OCKFALL ENCE P2-4901LA-C2PD AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION Geology and Biology As noted in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework, the Project site contains geological constraints including a very steep slope (40 to 70%)(Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., (CSA) City geotechnical peer reviewer, Ted Sayre,Principal Engineering Geologist, September, 2015), shallow slope instability (i.e., two foot-deep and six foot wide earthflow scars) one-on and one-off site, and an upslope fill prism. The site is adjacent to Sign Hill, a known biological resource within the City o South San Francisco. These issues are vetted fully in Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist and are briefly described in the Project Description as they are the drion of this 2 initial study. According to Ted Sayre, grading could involve 410 cubic yards of cut, or more. All the material would require removal and disposal. Off-haul trucks (dump trucks) vary in capacity from five to 10 cubic yards per load. Earth material tends to fluff in volume when excavated; approximately Therefore, 46 to 94 trips to and from the site would be required resulting in a round trip volume of 92-188 one-way truck trips, for grading alone. The Project requires and proposes the construction of rockfall fencing or a similar catchment devi to protect the residence adjacent to (northeast side) the Project, as identified in the Applicants geotechnical report. According to GeoTrinity Consultants and CSA, it would be during the grading and construction phase of the Project that the catchment device(s) would be required. Figure 3 shows the approximate location of the rockfalll fence. The northern (front) portion of the site is approximately 404 feand the rear 476 feet msl. Vertical cuts up to 22 feet in height would be required on the northeast, southeast, and southwest sides of the residence. Retaining walls ranging from four to 19, and possibly 22 feet in height would be required (GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, C. May 1, 2015). 2 Typically, the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone with utilities and infras categorically exempt from the CEQA requirements (CEQA Guidelines section 15303, Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). However, there are exceptions CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, subsection (a). Subsection (a) clearly states Class 3 exemptionsupon where the project would be located. The subsection further notes a project that in environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be signited in a biological habitat, or on steep or potentially unstable slopes, contamination (hazardous materials), the exception to the exempt initial study, which may be satisfied by utilizing the sample forms provided in App CEQA Guidelines. The Project site contains several geological constraints, includ-site (i.e., two-foot deep and six-foot wide earthflow scars) and another off-site, and an upslope fill prism. The site is also adjacent to Sign Hill, a known biological resource within the City of Sou Francisco has prepared an initial study for the Project, based upon the known geotechnical constraints, unknown and potential biological issues. 901LA–C2PDP2-5 ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTIONAGE C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Hazard Risk and Noise Assessments Given the amount of grading and geotechnical repair required for Gas and hazard risk assessments were performed and are fully vetted in Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist. Earthmoving, pile drilling (not driving) and construction will increase noise levels in the Project area. The Project area is residential and considered a sensitive recepA noise assessment was performed and a temporary sound barrier is proposed on the north noise impacts to the adjacent residence that is located five feet from the c Figure 3 shows the approximate location of the temporary sound barrier. N fully vetted in Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist. Construction Schedule The applicant indicates a 220 working day construction period, i.e., 32 if construction is seven days a 3 week to 44 weeks if it is five days a week. Table 2, below identifies the phases and anticipated duration of construction activities. Phases 1 and 2, site preparation and grading would be the most intrusive aspects of construction and would take approximately 35 days to complete. PDT2 ROJECT ESCRIPTION ABLE CS ONSTRUCTION CHEDULE WORKING PHASE DESCRIPTION DAYS 1 Site Preparation 5 2 Grading 30 3 Building Construction150 4 Paving 5 5 Architectural Coating 30 2.3EMMP NVIRONMENTAL ITIGATION EASURES ROPOSED PP AS ART OF THE ROJECT The following measures are included as part of the Project, and drawings, in the Project application materials and in Appendix A (Environmental Mitigation Measures [proposed by Applicant], Vinal Nand. December 2, 2015). These measures are in addition to the Citys standard requirements identified in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework. Therefore, the following measures are considered part of the Project for the CE any of these measures may result in a significant environmental , and may require further CEQA analysis. As noted in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework, the Citys Noise O 3 P2-6901LA-C2PD AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION A.Biology 1. Tree Removal Within Nesting Season (approximately March 1 to August 31). Applicantor designated representativewill retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for protected birds on the site and in the immediate viciif Project construction activities occur during nesting season. The survey will be done no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of tree removal and grading and other construction activities. In the event that nesting birds are fo on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity, Applicant will notify the City, locate and map the nest site(s) within three(3)days, submit a report to the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), establish a no-disturbance buffer of 250-feet, and conduct on-going weekly surveys to ensure the no-disturbance buffer is maintained. In the event of destruction of eggs, or if a juvenile or adult raptor should become stranded from the nest, injured or ki qualified biologist will immediately notify the CDFW. The qualified biologist will coordinate with the CDFW to have the injured bird either transferred to a raptor, in the case of mortality, transferit to the CDFW within 48 hours of notification; or, 2. Tree Removal Outside Nesting Season. Tree removal outside of the nesting season would preclude the need for the measures identified in A.1, above. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.030 (Tree Preservation Ordinance), a permit is required pr removal of a Protected Tree, defined in section 13.30.020 as: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historica(3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is survival. Prior to removing trees, the applicant or designated representatwill contact the Parks Division to determine if a removal permit is needed. B. Geology and Soils The conclusions and requirements presented in the following will be incorporated in the design and construction of the Project to minimize possiblesoil,slope,andfoundationrelatedproblems. The Geotechnical Consultant of Record (GCR) conducted the site work and developed the parameters and requirements by which to construct the Project. T consultant, Cotton Shires Associates (CSA), conducted peer review of GCRswork. The grading and construction requirements are excerpted from the fol as part of the Project. The reports are included in Appendix A in their entirety. Although the geotechnical measures are summarized herein the following reports will also be reviewed, understood, and implemented in full by Applicant and Contractor and shown on the grading and construction drawings and practices in the field. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, California. May 1, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Supplemental Letter for May 2015 Report and August 6, 2015 Plans August 18, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Response to Peer Review Letter. September 23, 2015. 901LA–C2PDP2-7 ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTIONAGE C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenu. May 26, 2015. Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 90 Larch Avenue. October 2, 2015. The following standards are taken directly from GCRs reports as terms are presented as they appear in the original reports. The Appendix A. The stabilityofthe unsupported verticalcuts during construction is a concern. Stormwater runoff and potential sloughing of surficial soil on the upslope sides of the Project will be managed. Drainage improvements will be emplaced toprovide positive drainage away from the buildings and to collect and channel surface waterrunoffto suitableoutlets. Detailed earthwork and foundation requirements for use in design theroject will be implemented. GCR (or qualified successor) will review the final design andspecifications to assure quality control. GCR will be on site full time during the initial grading and intermittently during the remaining site work. GCR will as necessary make changes to practices and methods to assur and stability of the Project and adjoining properties. CSA will be present on the Project site intermittently to oversee grading operations. 1.Earthwork Excavation Construction will be scheduled so that temporary vertical cuts are created andleftunsupported (before placement of concrete) only during a dry time of year. GCR and CSA will observe the excavations at frequent intervals asthey proceed in stages, e.g., every 5 vertical feet. As noted (Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenue. May 26, 2015 and GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Supplemental Letter for May 2015 Report and August 6, 2015 Plans. August 18, 2015) blocks of rock (eight inches or less in diameter) could come loo bounce towards the adjacent house during this phase of grading (CSA, GeoTrinity). A catchment fence will be constructed along the property line of the Project site adjacent to the southwestern corner of 859 Larch Avenue (see Figure 3) to protect the adjacent house from spalling rocks during slope cut operations. The rockfall fence will be a minimum of four feet in heig constructed of biaxial geotextile and attached to steel fence po of 9/23/15, p 3. (Note: This is a temporary protective structureed for placement during the early excavation work. Once a flatter bench is excava property then there will be no slopes to direct rockfall toward to adjacent residence).GCR will be on site during excavation to observe conditions and modify the height or length of time the rock fall fence is in place. GCR may modify cutslopes to be "laid back", where feasible due to property line constraints, to reducepotentialinstability. The contractor (Contractor) will observe the bedrockconditions exposed near the site and will anticipate the possible presence of localizedconditionsharder than those exposed there, before selecting equipment for the excavation work. P2-8901LA-C2PD AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION Contractor will be aware of current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Health and Safety Standards for Excavations,29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1926 and implement the standards. Thestabilityoftemporarycutslopesmayvaryfromoneplacetothenext,varywith changing moisture (groundwater) conditions and may requiretemporary support. Contractor's responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR, Part 1926, will evaluate the material exposed in the excavations as part of Contractor's safety procedures. Subgrade Preparation After completion of clearing and stripping, soil exposed in areas to rslabson grade, or pavements will be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, mo toslightly above optimum water content, and compacted to the requirements for structural fill. To achieve satisfactory compaction of the subgrade and fill materials, it may be necessary to adjustthewatercontent atthe time of construction. This adjustment may consist of addingwater to subgrade soils that are too dry or performing aeration and allowing for drying time in areas where subgrade soils are too wet. Fill Material On-site soilbelow thestripped layer andhaving an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume can be used as fill. All fill placed at the site, including on-site soils, will not containrocks or lumps larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, with no mor larger Compaction All fill and scarified surface soils in those areas to receive fslabs-on-grade will be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Designation01557, latest edition, at moisture contentnear the laboratory optimum. Fill will beplacedinlifts no greater than 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Each successive lift will be firm andnonyielding under the weight of heavy construction equipment. In pavement areas, the upper 6 inches of subgrade and full depth of aggregate base will be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction(ASTM 01557-91). Aggregate base andall importsoils will be compacted at moisture content near the laboratory optimum. Trench Backfill Bedding and shading materials around underground utility pipes wpredominantlygranular and will be placed and compacted in accordance with Project specifications, localrequirements, or other governing jurisdiction. General fill to be used above shad materialsbeplacedand compacted inaccordance with local requirements or the recommendationspresented in this section, whichever is more stringent. 901LA–C2PDP2-9 ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTIONAGE C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION The surficial brown clayey sands encountered during site charactgeneral fill above shading materials provided they meet requirements uFill Material. General fill will be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uandbe compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM 01557bymechanical means only. Jetting of trench backfill will not occur. The upper 12 inches of general fill inbuilding pad and pavement areas subject to wheel loads will be compacted to atleast 95 percent relative compaction. Thicker lifts may be attempted, provided that the method ofcompaction is approved by the geotechnical engineer and the required minimum degreeofcompactionisultimately achieved. The trenches will be backfilledby an impermeable plug at the exterior wall foundation whereutility trenches backfilledwith sandenterbuilding pads. The plugs can be composed ofcompacted clayey soil, compacted bentonite, or a bentonite-cement or sand-cement slurry mixture. The plugs will be at least 2 feet thick and will extend at least 2 feet beyond theedges and bottom of the trench to "key in" the plug. The plug will also extend verticallytowithin 1 foot of lowest adjacent grade. Surface Drainage Positive surface gradients will be provided adjacent to the struwateraway from foundations and slabs toward suitable discharge facilities. Similarly, roof downspoutsbe connected to solid collector pipes that discharge to appropriate surfacewater will not beallowed adjacent to the structures or on pavements. Guide Specifications will Guide SpecificationsSite Earthwork (GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development San Francisco, California. May 1, 2015, in GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development California. May 1, August 6 and September 23, 2015 and Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenue. May 26, 2015 and October 2, 2015, found in Appendix A. 2.Foundation Support The foundations of the new residence and retaining walls will generally consist of piers andgrade beams. Retaining walls no more than 4feet tall can be supported by spread footings. Foundation Piers The piers will be cast-in-drilled-hole, straight-shaft piers that develop their load-carryingcapacity by side resistance between the pier concrete and surrounding materi thesite conditions encountered, it is assumed that the excavations for the piers will generally exposethesandstone bedrock. Geotechnicaldesign parameters for foundation piers arepresented in the P2-10901LA-C2PD AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION PDT3 ROJECT ESCRIPTION ABLE PDP IER ESIGN ARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE Minimum spacing center to centerThree pier diameters Minimum pier diameter 16 inches Maximum length 10 feet Allowable skin friction, compression 400 pounds/square foot The allowable skin friction values are for dead loads and may be-third forallloads including wind or seismic. Eighty percent of side resistance can be used to resist uplift.Pier reinforcingwill be based on structuralengineering requirements. Grade beams will bedesigned to spanbetweenpiers. Before selecting equipment for the drilling of the pier holes, Cbedrock conditions exposed nearthesiteandanticipate the possible presence of localizedconditions harder than those exposed. The bottomsofthe pier excavations will berelatively dryand free of loose cuttings or slough prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete.Anyaccumulated water inpier excavationswill be removed prior to placing concrete. All retaining walls will be supported with pier foundations to relieve surcharge loads adjacent to tall basement walls (CSA, May 26 and 2015 and GeoTrinity September 22, 2015). Spread Footings Retaining walls no taller than 4 feet will be supported on conventionalcontinuousandisolated spread footings bearing on either undisturbed native soils or compactedfill. Footings will be at least 18 inches wide and founded at least 18 inches belowlowest adjacent finished grade. Footings locatedadjacentto other footingsor utility trenches bear below an imaginary 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected upward fromthebottom edge ofthe adjacent footingsor utility trench. All retaining walls exceeding 4 feet will utilize a pier supported foundation. The footings will be designed for an allowable bearing pressure (pounds per square foot) due to deadloads, 3,800 psf due todeadplus live loads, and 4,500 psf for all loads, including wind or seismic. These allowable bearing pressures are net values; th of the footingcan beneglected for design purposes. Continuous footings will be designed with at least twobars,both top and bottom. This #4 minimum reinforcing will provide structural continuity and permi localirregularities. Any visiblecracksin the bottoms of the footing excavations will be closedby wettingprior to construction ofthe foundations. GCR will observe the footing excavations prior toplacing reinforcingsteel or concrete,to check thatfootingsare founded on appropriate material. GCR estimates that post-constructiondifferential movement between adjacent columns will be no greater than 1/2inch. GCR will be retained to review the final foundation plans and structural loads to verify the above settlementestimates. 901LA–C2PDP2-11 ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTIONAGE C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION Lateral Resistance Lateral load resistance for the proposed structures and retainina passiveresistanceof350psftoamaximumvalueof4,000psfactingagainsttwicetheprojected area of the individual pier shafts be used for design; and aresistance coefficient of 0.35 betweenthe foundation bottom and the supporting subgrade for spread footingalternative, a passive resistance equal to an equivalent fluid weighing 400 pcf acting faceofthe foundationscouldbeused.foundationsarepouredneatagainstthesoil,thefrictionandpassive resistance can be used in combination. The uppermost one foot ofwill beneglected for passive pressure design, unless the adjacent grade is directly oor pavement. 3.Interior Slabs on Grade Interior slabs on grade, if used, will be supported on a minimum of 12 inches ofimported nonexpansive compacted fill. Alternatively, if the slab is reinforcedwith a minimum of #4 bars on 18-inch centers both ways for shrinkage control, the slab could be supported on 6inches of nonexpansive fill. Slab reinforcing will be providedinaccordance with the anticipated useand loadingof the slab with either alternative. A moisture barrier will be provided between theslab and subgrade below interior slabs-on-grade in living spaces. Moisture barrier will consist of 4 inches of 10-mil thick impermeable membrane (or Moistop) placedbetween the subgrade soil and the slab. The membrane will be covered with 2 inches of sandfor protectionduring construction. Thesand will be lightly moistened just prior to placing theconcrete. The moisture barrier can be used in lieu of the upper 6 inches ofrecommendednonexpansive fill. a wall or footing is not present at the edge of the slab to provide a watercutoff for the moisture barrier, a minimum 12-inch wide concrete barrier or "thickened edge"that is supported directly on the subgrade materials will be provided at the perimeter of theslab. Carpetsthat allow air to pass through them be will used over concrete floorslabs. vinyl or wood floor tilesare to be used, the concrete floor slab will be given sufficient time to air dry before the tilesare installed. Alternatively, a floor sealant could be applied o minimize moisturefromaccumulatingunder the floortiles. 4. Exterior Slabs The driveway and walkways will be supporteddirectlyon properlyprepared nativesoils or compacted fill. Elimination of a rock base beneath slabs will mi for migration of landscape irrigation water into subgrade soils below walkways an A few days prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils will be moistened to yield a moisturecontent approximately that of or slightly above the optimum moisture conTestMethod D-1557, latest edition. The water content of subgrade soils will be verified by fieldtesting by the geotechnical engineer priortoplacing concrete. P2-12901LA-C2PD AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION 5.RetainingWalls the All cutswill besupported by retainingwalls. In addition, the wall along the southwest side of residence will be extended upward toprovide an additional 2 feet of "freeboard"to deflectsmall debris flowsthat may emanate from the fill wedge on the neighboring property the southwest. The walls will be supported by pier or footing foundations in accordance with the requirement Retaining walls that are not restrained at the top will be designedto resist an active load due toan equivalentfluidpressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Retaining walls that will be restrained at the top will be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf. Thesevalues assume level backfill. Walls with inclined backfill will be designed for an additionalequivalent fluid pressure of for every2° of slope inclination. These lateral pressures assume a drained condition. To prevent a build-up of hydrostatic pressures, each retaining wall will be provided with a permanent rear subdrain. The subdrain will consist of a vertical blanket of ½--inch to ¾-inch crushed drain rock wrapped in filter fabric such as Mirafi l 40N orequivalent. Alternatively, Class 2 permeable material conforming to Section 68.1025 of the State of California Standard Specifications may be used in lieu of the drain rockandfilter fabric. The permeable material blanketwill be at least 12 inches thickand will beplaced from the base of the retaining walltoabout 1 foot below finished grade at the top of the wall. As a third alternative, Miradrain, Enkadrain matting, or similar drainage panels, subject to approval by the GCR, may be used for wall drainage. Damp-proofing of the walls will be included in areas where interior wall moisture would be undesirable. A 1-foot cap of compacted native soil will be placed over the permeable material to achieve finished grade. Each subdrain will be provided with a 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe (SDR 35) (standards of pipe). Theperforated pipe will be placed, perforations facing down, near the bottom of the wall and be surrounded by a few inches of subdrain rock material or connepanel material, whichever is used. The downstream end of the pipe(s) will be connected to thecollection facilities described belowunder the heading  Surface Drainage. Backfill behind the drainageblanket will consist of soil placed in level lifts about 8 inches inloose thickness, moisture conditioned to about theoptimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Relative compacti-placedry density of soil expressedas apercentage of maximum drydensityofthe samesoil, as determinedby TestMethod latest version. In lieu of compacted backfill, the subdrain materialmay ASTM 01557, take up the entire space behind the retaining wall. The tops of walls backfill subject to slope runoff, e.g., the wa (southeast, upslope)and the wall on the southwest side of the residence, will be provided with aconcrete- lined V-or U-ditch whose downstream end is connected to the collectionfacilitiesdescribed belowunder the heading  Surface Drainage. 901LA–C2PDP2-13 ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTIONAGE C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION 6.SurfaceDrainage All roof downspouts, any drainsin paved patiosor walkways, and the downstream ends of V- or U- ditches will be connected to solid pipes (type-SOR35 or schedule40) to avoid infiltrationof thesite soils. These pipes will be directed to appropriate discharge point(s) in the front of the 7.Seismic DesignFactors GCR developed site-specific spectral seismic design parameters are based on the 201 International Building Code,which is based on U.S. Geological Survey hazard data available in 2008. These designparameters are for use by the structural engineer when addressin seismic shakingindesigning theproposed residence, including retaining walls. Based onthespecificsitelocation bylatitude and longitude, Ss and S1 are 2.092 g and 0.991 g, respectively. GCR classifiedthesite as Site Class C,i.e., soft rock, based on itsdense fracture pattern and an estimated average blow count value) of 90 in the 0-100-foot depthinterval (N below the site. Based on the sitelocation andspecific Site Class C, GCR developedthe seismic designparameters, summarized in Table 4, below: PDT4 ROJECT ESCRIPTION ABLE PSDP ROJECT EISMIC ESIGN ARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE S 2.092 g MS for 0.2-second period S1.288 g M1 for1.0-second period S1.394 g DS for 0.2 -second period S 0.859 g D1 for 1.0-second period 8. CSA (October 2, 2015) notes and reinforces the following Project will be implemented.The following is a direct quote from CSA Peer review letter Octo 2015 with citations added by the author of this report. Final Design Plan Details Final Project construction plans will include retaining walls w freeboard on the downslope side of the existing fill wedge along the we property and surface drainage ditches will be detailed atop reta southwestern and southwestern sides of the residence (per GeoTrinity, September 23, 2015). Prior to initiation of grading, a temporary catchment fence will property line and downslope of the excavation work (per GeoTrinity direction). Geotechnical Construction Inspections The GCR will inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of Project construction. The inspections will include, but not necessarily P2-14901LA-C2PD AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the Project will be described by the GCR in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for re Certificate of Occupancy. C. Noise Applicant will employ the following mitigation measuresto comply with the Citys Noise Ordinance (South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.32)and reduce noise impacts due to construction at nearby sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible: 1.Secure an exception permit for noise levels that could temporari line in order to comply with the Citys Noise Ordinance. 2.Construct a temporary noise barrier between the Project and 859 adjacent to the site on the east (see Figure 3). The noise barrier will remain in place for the duration of construction. The barrier will be constructed on the eastern pro be long and tall enough to block the line of sight between construction activities and the adjacent sensitive receptor. Temporary barriers will be constructed from materials such as plywood lined with noise-absorbing material, commercial panels lined with sound absorbing 4 material, or noise blankets or curtainsand will have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of STC 30 or greater. Examples of noise control blankets and sound curtains as well as installation of these features can be viewed on the following we http://www.allnoisecontrol.com/outdoor-noise-control-blankets.cfm). 3.Enclosures for stationary equipment and movable barriers will be sensitive receptors to the north and west of the Project site to barriers will be located as close as possible to the noise sourcffective. Portable panels and noise curtains are examples of movable temporary noise barrier systems that might be feasible on the hillsides. Enclosures around stationary equipment can provide a 10 to 20 dB sound reduction and barriers or noise curtains can provide a 5 to 20 dB sound reduction in noise levels. 4.Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according 5.Provide advance notification to surrounding land uses disclosing including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the construction period. 6.Designate a member of the construction team as an on-site construction noise contact who will act as a Neighborhood Liaison for the duration of the Project. The Neighborhood Liaison will 4 Sound Transmission Class (STC) is a widely used rating for how well a building part STC ratings are used to rate interior partitions, ceiling/floors 901LA–C2PDP2-15 ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTIONAGE C2:PD HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION respond to noise issuesand implement solutions, if feasible and necessary in additionthose identified herein. For example, a neighbor may have a special event that requires environment for a few hours or a day, such as a wedding, birthday party or memorial service, and the construction schedule may be able to accommodate a breakafew hours. 7.Post signs around the Project site to inform persons of the cons and phone number of the person or persons to notify in the event of (Construction Team Neighborhood Liaison). 2.4 GPZ ENERAL LAN AND ONING GPD ENERAL LAN ESIGNATION The Project site is designated Low Density Residential (RL) permitting up to eight (8) units per acre. th The site is in within the Sterling Terrace neighborhood, constructed in the mid-20 century consisting of single-family detached residences. The terminus of Larch Avenue (to th abuts multi-family designated and developed properties. ZC ONING LASSIFICATION The Project site is zoned Residential Low Density allowing a maximum of eight (8) units per acre (RL-8). 2.5 RE EQUIRED NTITLEMENTS LAR EAD GENCY EQUIREMENTS Design Review Grading and Building permits. Encroachment permits to work in the public right-of-way. OARP THER GENCY EQUIRED ERMITS Local and State approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pl P2-16901LA-C2PD AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER ROJECT ESCRIPTION 3 EC NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST EC NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appe response indicates that the Project would not result in an envir of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not cause an effect on the resource. A  response indicates that, while there may be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of thpact would not exceed established thresholds and/or that there are standard procedures apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or tha significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available and have been agreed to and proposed . A  by the Project to reduce the impact to a level of   response indicates that the Project could exceed established thresholds, no mitigation is currently proposed or identified and therefore the impact will be analyzed in an environmental impact report. A  response indicates that although the impact would be considered significant, measures are identified and required herein that will reduce the impact to less than significant. Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant dis P3-1 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.1A ESTHETICS PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than Significant Significant Significant No with ImpactImpactImpact Mitigation Would the Project: X a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? S ETTING SSF OUTH AN RANCISCO South San Franciscos urban character is one of contrasts within-defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline BoulevaUS 380 to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The contained in almost a bowl-like fashion by hills on two sides. The Citys terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are vi of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain are visual landmarks. Much of rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Ge relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Franciscos industrial roots character, especially in its eastern parts. PAS ROJECT REA AND ITE The Project site is located in the northern portion of the City of South San Francisco, in an area known as the Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning sub-area (South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, page 118 (SSF GP, 1999)). The Project site is in the western portion of the planning sub-area in a single-family neighborhood known as Sterling Terrace. 901 Larch Avenue is located at the terminus of Lincoln Street where it intersects Larch Avenue (see Figure 1 Project Area and Figure 2 Project Location in Chapter 2). Lincoln Street increases in elevation from Hillside Boulevard to Larch Avenue, 293 to 345 feet in elevation; a rise of 52 feet. Larch Avenue also increases in elevation from Kearny to Lincoln Streets from 259 t intersection of Lincoln Street and Larch Avenue; a rise of approximately 89 feet (Google Earth, 2015). P3-2901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Sign Hill abuts the Project site to the southeast. The northern and northeastern facing slopes of Sign Hill, consisting of approximately 46 acres, are in private ownership. Sign Hill Park is located on the south facing slopes of the hill, is owned by the City and is public park and recreation land.Sign Hill Park consists of 27acres of open space with approximately two miles of hiking trailsand along a ridge spur reaches approximately 600 feet in elevati. Sign Hill is home to the Mission Blue and Callippe Silverspot butterflies, both federally-listed endangered species. The park gets its name from the sign, South San Francisco The Industrial City which was listed on the National Historic Register in 1996. The sign is outh facing slope of Sign Hill. The Project is on the north facing side of Sign Hill(s eeFigures1 ProjectAreaand2 Project Location in Chapter 2). Adjacent properties and boundaries include Larch Avenue to the n-family mid- th 20Century residence on the northeast, privately owned open space on the southeast and an undeveloped property on the southwest that once contained a water tower. Multi-family housing is adjacent to the Project area to the west and southwest. One of the multi-family units can be viewed at the terminus of Larch Avenue, a rather large structure comparatively speaking with a solid wall rising approximately 50 feet above the elevation of L (see Aesthetics Figure 1). Houses in the subdivision are predominately one-story over a garage on sloping lots that result in more massing on the downhill portion of the struc Aesthetics Figures 2 and 3). AF1 ESTHETICS IGURE BWMF ACK ALL OF ULTI AMILY P3-3 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST AF2 ESTHETICS IGURE SFNP INGLE AMILY ORTHWEST OF ROJECT AF3 ESTHETICS IGURE SFAP INGLE AMILY DJACENT TO ROJECT PSF ROJECT ITE IN OREGROUND P3-4901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The Project site is vacant with an approximate 44.7% overall slope (GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Developmentarch Avenue, South San Francisco, California. May 1, 2015). The site measures 150 feet in depth by 50 feet consisting of 7,500 square feet. Lots in this area of the single-family subdivision are predominately oriented in a northwest/southeast direction. Vegetation on the Project site consists of introduced grasses an have spread from nearby garden landscaping including grasses andweeds. Three trees are on the site: apine tree (Pinus sp.) about 11 inches diameter at breast height (dbh), a Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa)) about 24 inches dbh and a deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), about 18 inches dbh (Michael Marangio, Biological Resources Assessment prepared for Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting, Proposed Residence, 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, California. 1 November 10, 2015). The three trees would be removed to construct the Project. South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a P circumference of 48 or more when measured 54 above natural grade; a tree or stand designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uni public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical sigor a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determine others for survival. The trees on the site are not protected by City definition. See Section 3.5 Biological Resources for more information on biological resources. Project construction is proposed on the front one-third of the lot. Landscaping is proposed in the front, side, and portions of the rear of the property. Japanese Maple, Winter Boxwood, Star Jasmine, camellia, and lavender are proposed (see Figure 3 in Project Description). Table 1 Project Data from Chapter 2 is reproduced below for convenience. As shown in the table, the Project meets or exceeds the minimum setbacks and is under the m, and floor area ratio prescribed by City ordinance (SSFMC 20.080). AT1 ESTHETICS ABLE PD ROJECT ATA CRITERIA MEASUREMENT CITY STANDARDS Lot Coverage18 %50% maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.330.50 maximum Height (Maximum) 27-9.5 28 maximum Setbacks Front 15 15 minimum Side 5/55 minimum Rear 92.7520 minimum In all likelihood one tree, and not three, would be removed to construct the Pr 1 assumes three trees would be removed for a conservative evaluati P3-5 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST RF EGULATORY RAMEWORK SMC AN ATEO OUNTY Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Enviro International Airport (ALUP) The South San Francisco General Plan refers to the ALUP maximum height limits for structures within the San Francisco International Airport impact zone and Figure 2-3 Special Area Height Limitations (SSF GP, 1999, p. 35). The Project site is not within an airport-related height restriction zone, and therefore is governed by the maximum height of 28 feet shown in Aesthetics Table 1, above. CSSF ITY OF OUTH AN RANCISCO Design Review Board As identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.1, the Project is required by law to undergo review by the Citys Design Review Board (DRB). Changes in design may be identified by DRB and may also be identified by the Planning Commission. Design review regulates signage, site layout, architecture, urban design, and lighting. The Project underwent design review on August 18, 2015 (DR15-0033). DRB indicated acceptance of the Project design and notes that Applicant may wa landscaping and the use of gray water for irrigation (letter from Adena Friedman, Senior Planner, to Applicant, September 9, 2015). General Plan Scenic vistas and corridors are identified in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project site is not identified as a site that is visible from at least one viewpoint and is not identified as a viewpoint site (Figure 2-4 Viewshed, SSF GP, 1999, p. 36). I MPACTS a) Scenic Vistas Significance Criteria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negat-appearing project within such a vista. Any clear conflict with a general plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be consideredicant adverse environmental impact. The view of Sign Hill is on the south-sloping portion of the mountain, not the north-facing portion where the Project is located. The ridge of Sign Hill reaches approximately 600 feet in P3-6901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST elevation. The Sterling Terrace subdivision ranges in elevation from approximately 200 to 450 feet. The historic portion of Sign Hill is not visible from the northern and western slopes of Sign Hill. The Project would not block views of the historic sign. The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in th obstruction of a formally designated public vista. The Project is not identified as a viewpoint parcel or as one containing view value. The Project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to scenic vistas. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes Significance Criteria: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic rs, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and his local] scenic highway). There are no state or local scenic highways within the Project area. Additionally, there are no rock outcroppings, heritage, or historic trees or buildings on the Project site. Therefore, there are no scenic resources or scenic route impacts associated with the Project, as defined by the significance criteria. The Project would have no impact on scenic resources. c) Visual Character Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The Project would be located in an area which is single-family residential. As noted above, th adjacent properties include a single-family mid-20Century residence on the northeast, privately owned open space on the southeast and an undeveloped property on the southwest that once contained a water tower. Houses in the Sterling Terrace subdivision are predominately one-story over a garage on sloping lots that typically result in more mass lots. Multi-family housing complexes are adjacent to the Project area(see Aesthetics Figure 1).One of the multi-family complexes dominates the streetscape in the Project area, rising approximately 50 feet above the elevation of Larch Avenue. The Project would be a two-story structure over a partially subterranean garagein keeping with the predominate structural pattern of the Sterling Terrace neighborhood The maximum height would be 27 feet 9.5 inches, under the permitted 28 foot maximum. Massing would be reduced on the second story. The second story consisting of 733 square feet would be percent than the ground floor, which would consist of 1,224 square feet. The Project would be built on the portion of the lot that is the lowest in elevation, similar to other single-family structures in the neighborhood. The Project would provide a transition from t mass of the back of the multi-family structure to the south and the single-family structures within the subdivision. The Project would have no impact on visual character or the quality of the site or its surroundings. P3-7 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST d) Light or Glare Significance Criteria:Project related creation of any new source of substantial light would adversely affect day ornighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. The Projectsiteis a built-out residential neighborhood on one single vacant lot. The addition light associated with one single-family detached residence is de minimus. Exterior lighting for doorways, pathways, etc., would be downcast and task-oriented as required by the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)and described in Chapter 1 Introduction. As required to be constructed per law, the Project would not substantially increase the light in the area and would not produce glare. The Project would have a less than significant impact on light and glare impacts. Aesthetics Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic qual on the site or in the area. The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, n would it result in the obstruction of a formally designated publ The Project is not identified as a viewpoint parcel or as one co (SSF GP, 1999). The Project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scen The Project would be built on the portion of the lot that is the other single-family structures in the neighborhood. Massing would be reduced on the second story. The second story, consisting of 733 square feet, would be 40 percent smaller than the ground floor, consisting of 1,224 square feet. The Project would be built on the portion of the lot that is the lowest in engle- family structures in the neighborhood. The Project would provide a transition from the mass of the back of the multi-family structure to the south and the single-family structures within the subdivision. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic, visual quality or light and glare associated with the Project. P3-8901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.2AFR GRICULTURAL AND OREST ESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant SignificantNo with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. X a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section51104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? S ETTING Vegetation on the Project site consists of introduced grasses an have spread from nearby garden landscaping including grasses and weeds. Three trees are on the site: a pine tree (Pinus sp.) about 11 inches diameter at breast height (dbh), a Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) about 24 inches dbh and a deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), about 18 inches dbh (Michael Marangio, Biological Resources Assessment prepared for Allison Knapp Wollasulting, P3-9 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Proposed Residence, 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, Calif. November 10, 2015). The three trees would be removed. I MPACTS a, b and e) Farmland Impacts Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act c environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses. The Project site contains no farmland, is not zoned agricultural or adjacent thereto, and as such would not involve the conversion of Farmland, Unique Farmland, oide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The Proj Act Contract. The Project site is not nearby or adjacent to any agricultural use and as such would have no impact to farmland. c, d and e) Forest Land Impacts Significance Criteria: A significant impact would result from a conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberla Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g)) or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, or in proximity to such a use. Removal of three small trees to construct a single-family house would not cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberla by Government Code section51104(g)).The Project is not nearby or adjacent to timberland or forest lands and would have no impact on timberland production or resources or forest lands. Agriculture and Timber Resources Finding: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and does not contain any Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) nor land in a Williamson Act Contract. The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, and would not cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). P3-10 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.3AQ IR UALITY PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than SignificantSignificant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Would the Project: Mitigation Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? S ETTING M ETHODOLOGY This air quality analysis was performed using methodologies and within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines 2 (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012).This section describes regional meteorology, existing air quality conditions, air quali pollutant construction and operational impacts. The Air Districts June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance n March 5, 2012, the Alameda 2 County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air Dis thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a projecir District to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact obefore recommending their use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are no and thus valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set e Air District had complied with CEQA. The courts order permits the Air District to develop and dissem Guidelines, as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance. Although the BAAQMDs adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial BAAQMDs Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), p BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BA thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. Californias First District Court of Appeal issued a decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Case No. A134335, August 13, 2013), laying the groundwork for t reinstatement of the BAAQMDs air quality thresholds, including for greenhouse gas emi P3-11 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Analyzed air quality pollutants include: carbon monoxide (CO), r (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers (coar 2 particulates or PM10), and particulate matter equal to or less t particulates or PM2.5). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also with regard to health impacts. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are addressed within Section 3.4. The Air Quality Conditions of Approval identified in Chapter 1 Legislative Framework, are required to be implemented as part of the Project pursuant to th of South San Franciscos project review and building permit process. The conditions address dust control, combustion exhaust control, control of toxic air contaminants, architectura control, and hearth emission control. RM EGIONAL ETEOROLOGY Air quality is affected by the rate, amount, and location of pol meteorological conditions that influence pollutant movement and conditions, including wind speed, wind direction, stability, and air temperature, in combination with local surface topography (i.e., geographic features such as Francisco Bay), determine the effect of air pollutant emissions The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) extends from the area northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end, and gradun of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminates. San Franci peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is 3 layer is able to flow across most of the city, making its climate relatively cool and windy. However, the area of South San Francisco and San Francisco Inter experience lower winds and a greater frequency of calm winds (ap year), especially during the nighttime and cooler season, due to sheltering effect of terrain to the west. Meteorological data collected at the SFO, which is approximately2.5 miles south of the Project site, are representative of general Project conditions. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures at SFO are 56 and 42 degrees Fahrenhei average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum temperatures areºFand 54 ºF, 4 respectively. Precipitation at SFO averages approximately 20 inc Annual average wind speeds range from five to 10 miles per hour (mp peninsula. The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind pa by local topographic features. That is, a few hundred feet rise will induce flow around that feature instead of over it during stable atmospheric wind pattern by as much as 90 degrees over short distances. On m pressure gradient, areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flow in the surface layer, induced by upslope flow on the east-facing slopes and by the bay breeze. The bay Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay A Peninsula 3 http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area- Climatology/Subregions/Peninsula.aspx. Western Regional Climate Center, Local Climate Data Summaries for San Francisco International Air. 4 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?ca23234. P3-12 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST breeze is rarely seen in the afternoon because the stronger sea 5 pattern. RC EGULATORY ONTEXT The Project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Ai,under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursua Air Act, as amended, and the California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMdopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its per Other BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, pr and responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD has also published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of p proposed in the Bay Area. RAQ EGIONAL IR UALITY MONITORING The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six criteria pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the Pr Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone, particulate matter in the form of PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO, and sulfur dioxide (SO). 22 Air Quality Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by the Air Resources Board (CARB) for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately eight miles to the north of the Project s-hour PM10 standard and federal 24-hour PM2.5standard were each exceeded once in 2012. The federal 1- hour NOstandard was exceeded once in 2012. The federal 24-hour PM2.5standard was 2 exceeded twice in 2013. No exceedances of the air quality standa other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded durin The Bay Area is considered a nonattainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The nonattainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but nan Air Act. The area has attained both State and National Ambient Air Qualit, and 2 NO. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air qualit 2 particulate matter, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for ozone nitrogen oxides [NOx]), PM10 and PM2.5, and apply to both constr operational period impacts. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology  Peninsula 5 http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-Area- Climatology/Subregions/Peninsula.aspx. P3-13 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST AQT1 IR UALITY ABLE AQDS IR UALITY ATA UMMARY SF,AS,SF,CA20122014 AN RANCISCO RKANSAS TREETAN RANCISCO PollutantStandardDays Standard Exceeded 2012 2013 2014 OzoneState 1Hour0 0 0 OzoneFederal 8Hour0 0 0 OzoneState 8Hour0 0 0 PM10Federal 24Hour000 PM10 State 24Hour 1 0 0 PM2.5 Federal 24Hour 1 2 0 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 8Hour0 0 0 Nitrogen DioxideState 1Hour000 Nitrogen Dioxide Federal 1Hour1 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour 0 0 0 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx, 2015. I MPACTS a)Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria: Any project that would not support the goals of the 2010 Bay A Plan (Bay Area CAP) would not be considered consistent with the 010 Bay Area CAP. On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 Bay Area CAP. CAP updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with California Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measurto reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be a 2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP are to: Attain air quality standards; o Reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay o Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. o The recommended measure for determining Project support of thesegoals is consistency with BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. As presented in the subsequent impact discussions, the Project with Air Quality Conditions of Approval, identified in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework which are required by law would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds; therefore, the Project would support th There would be a less-than-significant impact associated with, conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i BAAQMDs construction and/or operational mass emission thresholdfor exhaust emissions and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not imp thresholds are designated to assess whether the Project would po P3-14 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Projects with impacts less than the significance thresholds with implementatio presumed to not violate air quality standards. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air pollutants also be a comparison to the mass daily and annual thresholds. These thresh identify a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significat. The thresholds of significance applied to assess project-level air quality impacts are: Average daily construction exhaust emissions of 54 pounds per da o or PM2.5 or 82 pounds per day of PM10; and Average daily operation emissions of 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 or o 82 pounds per day of PM10; or result in maximum annual emissions year of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 or 15 tons per year of PM10 Construction Related Impacts The Project includes the construction of a two-story, single-family residence with a two-car garage (totaling approximately 2,500 square feet) on a 7,500-square-foot lot. Site preparation would include the removal of vegetation and grading would includ yards of soil export. Soil export was assumed to require approximately 50 haul truck trips (based on haul truck capacity of 8 cubic yards) to Baylands Soil Proces from the Project site. Construction activities would require app to 44 weeks to complete. Construction, as permitted by City ordinance, could take place Monday through 6 Friday from 8AM to 8 PM with some work on Saturdays and Sundays. Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis i construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQM significance thresholds. The CalEEMod (California Emissions Esti 2013.2.2) was used to quantify Project construction emissions of Appendix A for CalEEMod output data). Air Quality Table 2 provides the estimated short-term construction emissions that would be associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the construction exhaust emissions. As the construction phases (site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and coatings) are sequential, the average emissions were compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. A-related emissions would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. This analysis assumes a worst case analysis that the Project wou 6 permitted by ordinance. Construction activities would likely beht-nine hours weekdays. P3-15 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST AQT2 IR UALITY ABLE PCCPE ROJECT ONSTRUCTION RITERIA OLLUTANT MISSIONS () POUNDS PER DAY ROGNOxPM10PM2.5CO Project Construction<1.09.20.20.27.1 Significance Thresholds54548254--- Significant Impact?No No NoNo No Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 Notes: Refer to Appendix A for CalEEMod output data. Values reflect rounding. Construction activities, particularly during site preparation an generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly contro would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depen magnitude of construction activity and local meteorological cond would also depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind s the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust particles would settle near the would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction receptors could be adversely affected by dust generated during construction activities. BAAQMDs CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides a number of Construction Mitigation Measures (related to fugitive dust and combustion exhaust emissions) for required of the Project through the Citys standard review and approval. The Applicant would also use low ROG coatings and finishes, as required by the BAAQM 7 through the City Building Division. All construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds with the implementation of these measures that are required the Air Quality Conditions of Approval. Project impacts that would be associated with construction related fugitive dust and combustion exhaust emissi significant with implementation of the standard Air Quality Conditions of Approvalas required by law, identified in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework. Operational Impacts The CalEEMod was also used to estimate emissions that would be a such as space heating, water heating, and landscape maintenance Appendix A for CalEEMod output data). Operational emissions associated with mot were also estimated. As part of the Project design, fireplaces, osed for installation in 8 residential units, would use natural gas or propane only. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC as ROG) due to the 7 contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectu-3). Rule 8-3 was recently revised to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC ary 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percent reduction of VOectural coating applications. The applicant shall use paints and solvents with a150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces. On July 9, 2008, the BAAQMD adopted Regulation 6, Rule 3: Wood-Burning Devices to reduce the harmful emissions that 8 come from wood smoke. The Rule requires cleaner-burning (e.g., natural gas) USEPA-certified stoves and inserts in new housing construction. P3-16 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Estimated operational daily and annual emissions that would be a presented in Air Quality Tables 3 and 4 and are compared to BAAQMDs thresholds of significance. The estimated operational emissions that would be associated wit operations would be below the BAAQMDs significance thresholds. impacts that would be associated with operational emissions woul significant. AQT3 IR UALITY ABLE PDOCPE ROJECT AILY PERATIONAL RITERIA OLLUTANT MISSIONS () POUNDS PER DAY ROGNOxPMPMCO 102.5 Project Operation 0.1 0.1<0.1 <0.10.4 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 --- Significant Impact?No No No NoNo Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 Notes: Refer to Appendix A for CalEEMod output data. Values reflect rounding. AQT4 IR UALITY ABLE PAOCPE ROJECT NNUAL PERATIONAL RITERIA OLLUTANT MISSIONS () TONS PER YEAR ROGNOxPM PM CO 102.5 Project Operation <0.1 <0.1<0.01 <0.01 <0.1 Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10 --- Significant Impact?No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 Notes: Refer to Appendix A for CalEEMod output data. Values reflect rounding. Operational CO Impacts The BAAQMD has identified preliminary screening criteria for determining whether CO emissions would be exceeded. The screening criteria provide a co whether the implementation of the Project would result in CO emi significant. This methodology includes the following: 1.Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management p established by thecounty congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regionaltransportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2.The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected i more than 44,000 vehicles per day. 3.The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected i more than 24,000 vehicles per day where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge unde urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The Project traffic would not cause the daily traffic volumes to shown in items 1 through 3 based on the circulation infrastructure and volumes. A single-family home typically generates nine vehicle trips per day (Institute of Traffic P3-17 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Engineers). Impacts that would be associated with long-term operationalCO exhaust emissions would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the B significance thresholds. Project-related emissions would be below the significance thresholds with implementation of the Air Quality Conditions of Approval, identified in Chapter 1, as required by law (see Air Quality Tables 2 through 4). Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less t d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Significance Criteria: The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent of contracting cancer from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as DPM or having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. A project is considered to be significant if the incremental cancer risk at a receptor e For cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the ri within a 1,000 foot radius of the Projects impact area (i.e., c residence located to the northwest of the Project) be assessed ato a cumulative increased risk threshold of 100 in one million. The non-cancer hazard index significance threshold of 1.0 is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For cumulative analysis of non-cancer hazard index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the Projects impact area be assessed and index threshold of 10. Emissions of PM2.5are associated with health risks. The BAAQMD has established a s significance threshold for PM2.5to protect public health. For individual projects, the BAAQMD significant threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual inc 3 cubic meter (µg/m). For cumulative analysis, BAAQMD recommends that the PM2.5 concentrations from all sources within a 1,000 foot radius of the Proj 3 assessed and compared to a cumulative threshold of an average an. People within the general population that are more susceptible tf air pollution include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain il schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. The Project site is a vacant lot in an existing residential subd located to the north, northeast,and east of the Project site, while multifamily residences are located to the west and southwest. Sign Hill Park is located to Hillside Christian Academy is at 1415 on the south side of Hillside Boulevard and Mills Montessori School at 1400 on the north side of Hillside Boulevard, approximately 700 feet from the Project site. Hillside Christian Academy is approximately 350 feet northwes. Hillside School is approximately 1,000 feet north of the Project site, and was closed in 2005. The nearest P3-18 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST sensitive receptor is the adjacent property to the east of ProjeHillside ChristianAcademy is located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. Construction activities would entailthe use of diesel equipment that generate emissions of DPM, which the CARB has categorized as a human carcinogen. Typically, based on a lifetime exposure period of 70 years. Because exhaust emissions associated with construction activities of the Project would be very low and short-term in nature (approximately 32 weeks), it is anticipated that exposure to construction-related DPM would not result in an elevated health risk. The health risk and hazard impacts to sensitive receptors from Project construction would be less than significant with impleme Quality Conditions of Approval, as required by law. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool (dated May 2012) for estimating cumulative health risks from per source is located within 1,000 feet of the Project. BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. US 101 is incl this roadway is greater than 1,000 feet from the Project site. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater. Upon review oide 9 Boulevard (15,600 AADT) meets the criteria. The cumulative cancer risk for the proposed receptor due to Hillside Boulevard is 0.5 per million persons, w per million persons. The cumulative PM2.5 concentration for the osed receptor due to 33 Hillside Boulevard is 0.02 µg/m; well below the threshold of 0.8 µg/m. As the cumulative impacts would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds and the Project would not result in increased health impacts exctlevel - thresholds, the Project would also not result in a cumulatively to localized health risk and hazard impacts. Therefore, the cumu would be less than significant. e) Odor Impacts Significance Criteria: The BAAQMDs significance criteria for odors are more subjective a based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. G considers any project with the potential to frequently expose me objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. Projects that would site a new receptor farther than the applicable BAAQMD-established screening distances from an existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likelyficant odor impact. An odor source with five more confirmed complaints per year aver considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the Typical odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt b Bay Area Air Quality Management District County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic 9 Linkage Service Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp. P3-19 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST manufacturing facilities, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, a and coffee roasting facilities. Diesel-fueled construction equipment would generate some odors associated with diesel exhaust. Diesel emissions typically dissipate quickly and would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of peopleand the other types of odors are not present in the Project area. Therefore, odor impacts associated with construction and operati Project would be less than significant. Air Quality Finding: Project impacts that would be associated with construction-related fugitive dust and combustion exhaust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the Citysstandard Air Quality Conditions of Approval, identified in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework. The Project traffic would not cause the daily traffic volumes to based on the circulation infrastructure and the projected traffi-family house typically generates nine vehicle trips per day. Therefore, impac long-term operational CO exhaust emissions would be less than significant. Odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the P significant. There would be a less-than-significant impact associated with, conflicting with, or obstruc implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The health risk and hazard impacts to sensitive receptors from P less than significant with implementation of the Citysstandard Air Quality Conditions of Approval, as required by law. The cumulative impacts would well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds and the Project would not result in increased health impacts exceedilevel - thresholds, the Project would also not result in a cumulatively to localized health risk and hazard impacts. Therefore, the cumulative health impacts would be less than significant. 3.4GGE REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS Potentially Less Than Less Than SignificantSignificant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: X a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? P3-20 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST S ETTING Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenh capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH), nitrous oxide 24 (NO), ozone, and water vapor. 2 While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are nat, CH, 24 and NO are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate 2 occur within earths atmosphere. Emissions of CO are largely by-products of fossil fuel 2 combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbo and are generated in certain industrial processes. GHG are typic- 10 equivalent measures (COe). 2 There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warmi include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rit days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agricul 11 changes in habitat and biodiversity. In 2012, the United States emitted about 6.526 billion tons of COe or about 21 tons per year 2 per person. Of the four major sectors nationwide - residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation  electrical generation accounts for the highest fraction of GHG emissions (approximately 32 percent); these emissions are entirely generat combustion. United States GHG emissions decreased by 3.4 percent from 2011 to 2012. Recent trends can be attributed to multiple factors including reduced emissions from electricity generation, improvements in fuel efficiency in vehicles with red year-to-year changes in the prevailing weather. GHG emissions in 2012 we 12 2005 levels. Californias gross emissions of GHG decreased by 1.6 percent from 466.3 million metric to COe in 2000 to 458.7 million metric tons in 2012, with a maximum o 2 in 2004. During the same period, Californias population grew by million people. As a result, Californias per capita GHG emissio 13 the last 12 years from 13.7 in 2000 to 12.1 million metric tons e per person in 2012. 2 California has one of the lowest per capita GHG emission rates ithe country, due to the success of its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs a lowered the states GHG emissions rate of growth by more than ha Because of the differential heat absorption potential of variousare frequently measured in carbon 10 dioxide-equivalents, which present a weighted average based on each gas 2006 Final Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legisl 11 http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF USEPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19902012, April 2014, 12 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport. CARB, 2014 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2000  2012, May, 2014, 13 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-12_report.pdf P3-21 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST otherwise. Another factor that has reduced Californias fuel use and GHG emissions is its mild climate compared to that of many other states. The transportation sector remains the largest source of GHG emis 36 percent of Californias GHG emission inventory. Contributionsom the transportation sector include emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles, aviation, rail and water-borne vehicles, and some other minor sources. Transportation-related GHG emissions have dropped 12 percent since reaching a maximum in 2007. In 2012, emissions from the on-road category 14 decreased by 0.5 percent from the previous year. The California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Te composition of gross GHG emissions in California in 2002 (exprese) were 2 15 as follows: CO accounted for 83.3 percent; o 2 CH accounted for 6.4 percent; o 4 NO accounted for 6.8 percent; and o 2 Fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFC, and SF) accounted for 3.5 percent. o 6 In the San Francisco Bay Area, the transportation sector and indl/commercial sector represent the largest sources of GHG emissions, accounting for 3 Areas 95.8 million tons of COe in 2007. Electricity/co-generation sources account for about 2 15.9 percent of the Bay Areas GHG emissions, followed by residential fuel usage at about 7.1 percent. Off-road equipment and agricultural/farming sources currently accoun approximately three percent and 1.2 percent of the total Bay Are 16 respectively. The City of South San Francisco published a community-wide GHG emissions inventory for the 17 year of 2005. The inventory attributed the two largest sources of GHG emission transportation (34.9 percent) and to commercial/industrial (34.7 Francisco emittedapproximately 560,414 metric tons of COe in 2005. 2 RF EGULATORY RAMEWORK California has increased focus on the need to control GHG emissi and to prepare for adapting to the effects of global climate charizes prominent regulations and initiatives in California that address Senate Bill 1771 (Sher, Chapter 1018, Statutes of 2000), signed on September 30, 2000, o established the creation of the California Climate Action Regist (CCAR) as a non- profit organization. SB 1771 required the California Energy Comm update the state GHG emissions inventory and to develop data and CARB, 2014 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2000  2012, May, 2014, 14 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-12_report.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Ca, 15 December 2010, http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CAT-1000-2010-005/CAT-1000-2010-005.PDF BAAQMD, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, F 16 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Em shx?la=en City of South San Francisco, 2005 Community-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, January 2011. Available 17 http://ca-southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2472. P3-22 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST climate change and to provide certain entities and interest groups with information on the costs, technical feasibility, and demonstrated effectiven reducing GHGs from in-state sources. SB 1771 required the inventory to be updated every five years. Senate Bill 527 (Sher, Chapter 769, Statutes of 2001), which amended SB 1771, was o signed on October 11, 2001. The bill revised the functions and d and required the CCAR, in coordination with the CEC to adopt thi-party verification metrics, develop GHG emissions protocols and qualif-party organizations to provide technical assistance and certification of emis and inventories. Assembly Bill 32 (Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming o Solutions Act of 2006, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006, required the CARB to lower GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020a 25 percent reduction statewide, with mandatory caps for significant AB 32 directed CARB to develop discrete early actions to reduce preparing a scoping plan (i.e., the Climate Change Scoping Plan) in order how best to reach the 2020 limit. Senate Bill 97 (Dutton, Chapter 187, Statutes of 2007), signed on August 24, 2007, o directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines to mitigate GHG emissions identified through the CEQA including the effects associated with transportation and energy directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendmen CEQA Guidelines for GHG on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regul Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 97 became effective on March 18, 2010. BAAQMD AY REA IR UALITY ANAGEMENT ISTRICT The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality reg San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of its role in air quation, BAAQMD has prepared CEQA air quality guidelines to assist lead agencies in proposed projects and plans. The guidelines provide procedures f quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects for the first time. The BAA thresholds from construction activities, but recommends that significance be determined in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. OPRs amendment as well as BAAQMDs CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and thresholds of significance have been incorporated into the analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project. SSFCAP OUTH AN RANCISCO LIMATE CTION LAN 18 The City of South San Francisco prepared a Pedestrian Master Pla and a Climate 19 Action Plan (CAP). The City Council adopted the PMP and CAP on February 12, 2014. The City of South San Francisco, Pedestrian Master Plan, February 13http://www.ssf.net/1531/Pedestrian-Master-Plan. 18 P3-23 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST CAP provides goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissio adaptation and support the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. The PMP pr-wide plan providing for a network of sidewalks and paths to facilitatncreased walking to local destinations. The PMP includes an inventory and assessment of th a gap analysis, to identify and prioritize needed improvements a measurable implementation measures. A key focus area is the Downtown Area and downtown residential neighborhoods. I MPACTS a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project specific threshold of either a brightline threshold of 1,100 metric tons of COe per year or an efficiency 2 threshold of 4.6 metric tons of COe per year per service population (i.e., the number of 2 residents plus the number of employees associated with a new dev cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively sign Alternatively, a project that is found to be consistent with a Q than significant impact to global climate change. This analysis metric tons of COe per year or 4.6 metric tons of COe per year per service population significance criterion 22 while also reviewing the goals, policies, and measures within th CalEEMod (Version 2013.2.2) was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project construction activities (for informational purposes), as well as-term operations associated with natural gas space and water heating, electricity, landscape CalEEMod incorporates local energy emission factors and mitigation measures based on the 20 CAPCOAs Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures and the California Climate Action Registry 21 General Reporting Protocol. Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated wiProject are presented in GHG Emissions Table 1. The estimated construction GHG emissions are 109 metric tons of COe. The BAAQMD does not recommend a threshold for GHG emissions from 2 construction, so this analysis (similar to many other analyses pn the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin) amortizes the construction emissions over the li and adds amortized construction emissions to the annual operatioThe 30-year amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would be 3.6 metric tons of COe. 2 GHG Emissions Table 1 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project. The GHG operational (plus construction) impacts with would be approximately 17 metric tons of COe per year, which is below the BAAQMD 2 significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons and thus, would be a than significant impact related to climate change. City of South San Francisco, Climate Action Plan, February 13, 2http://www.ssf.net/1803/Climate-Action-Plan. 19 CAPCOA, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- 20 content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Mhttp://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/GRP.pdf 21 P3-24 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regul The City of South San Francisco has adopted a CAP regarding the reduction of GHG emiss The City has established a baseline government and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would result in a significant impact if i State goals and the goals, policies, and measures of the applicable emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 and the CAP will be succ emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide byState have taken these measures, because no project individually could positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG The Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and South San Francisco CAP and i has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and GHGET1 MISSIONS ABLE PRGGE ROJECT ELATED REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS GHG COe Metric Tons Per 2 Emission Source Year Construction (30-year amortized) 3.6 Operations Area Sources 0.1 Energy 4.8 Mobile 8.0 Solid Waste 0.6 Water 0.2 Total Emissions (with Construction) 17.3 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 1,100 Potentially Significant? No Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 Notes: Refer to Appendix A for CalEEMod output data. Values reflect rounding. The principal State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of r 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and the LCFS are being implemented at the statewide level, and compliance at the not addressed. The Project does not conflict with AB 32 measures and South San Francisco CAP and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict wit goals of AB 32 and the applicable CAP (AB 32). Therefore the Project is in compliance with the stated regulations contained in the applicable plans. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with th regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. T would have a no impact on climate change. Greenhouse Gas Finding:The Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and South San Francisco CAP and it has been determined that the Proj the goals of AB 32 and the applicable CAP. Therefore the Project is also in compliance with the stated regulations contained in the plans. P3-25 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cum GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with the plans, po adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, th- than-significant impact on climate change. The Project would not conflict with the plans, policies, and reg of reducing GHG emissions. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. 3.5BR IOLOGICAL ESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant SignificantNo with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? P3-26 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST S ETTING I NTRODUCTION The biological assessment used to inform this section was prepar Marangio Biological Consulting(Michael Marangio, Biological Resources Assessment Prepared for Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting, Proposed Residence, 901 Larch Avenue, South San Fran. November 10, 2015). The complete assessment is contained in Appendix A. The purpose of this biological resource assessment wasto review a site proposed for development in sufficient detail to determine if the Project may affect threatened, endang plant species as well as important habitats such as wetlands. Thebiological assessment provides information that is intended for use in environmental documents . PD ROJECT ESCRIPTION 901 Larch Avenue is vacant and located at the terminus of Lincol Larch Avenue, on the north facing slope of Sign Hill (see Figures 1 ProjectArea and2 Project Location in Chapter 2). The northern and northeastern facing slopes of Sign Hill, consisting of approximately 46 acres, are in private ownership. Sign Hill Park is located on the south facing slopes of the hill, is owned by the City and is public park and recreation land. Sign Hill Park consists of 27 acres of open space with approximately two miles of hiking trail and along a ridge spur reaches approximately 600 feet in elevati. Sign Hill is home to the Mission Blue and Callippe Silverspot butterflies, both federally listed endangered species. The Project would construct a single-family residence consisting of approximately 2,500 square feet. Construction is proposed on the front third of the lot. Landscaping is proposed in the front, side and portions of the rear of the property. Japanese Maple, Winter Boxwood, Star Jasmine, camellia, and lavender are proposed (see Figure 2 in Project Description). Vegetation on the Project site consists of introduced grasses and plants; escaped exotics that have spread from nearby garden landscaping including grasses and weeds. Three trees are on the site: one pine tree (Pinus sp.) about 11 inches diameter at breast height (dbh), one Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa)) about 24 inches dbh and one deodar cypress (Cedrus deodara), about 18 inches dbh (Michael Marangio, Biological Resources Assessment Prepared for Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting, Proposed Residence, 901 Larch Avenue, South Francisco, California. November 10, 2015). The three trees would be removed to conduct grading and The Applicant proposes the following as part of the Project as noted in Chapter 2, Project Description: If Project construction activities occur during the nesting season (approximately March to August 31), for birds protected under the California Fish and (MBTA), the applicant will retain a qualified biologist to condu survey for protected birds on the site and in the immediate vicinity. The survey done no more than 15 days prior to the initiation to constructio that nesting birds are found on the Project site or in the immed P3-27 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Applicant will locate and map the nest site(s) within three days and su the City and California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW")- disturbance buffer of 250-feet, and conduct on-going weekly surveys to ensure the no- disturbance buffer is maintained. In the event of destruction of a nest w juvenile or adult raptor should become stranded from the nest, i qualified biologist will immediately notify the CDFW. The qualif coordinate with the CDFW to have the injured bird either transferred recovery center or, in the case of mortality, transfer it to th notification or, Conduct tree removal outside of the nesting season to completely avoid any potential impacts to nesting birds. The Applicant, during a meeting on December 1, 2015, indicated the preference to remove trees outside nesting season (meeting attendees: Sailesh Mehra, Adena Friedman, Allison Knapp). The analysis contained herein notes the removal of three trees to comply with a reasonable wor case analysis under CEQA; in all likelihood only one tree would be required to be removed. RF EGULATORY RAMEWORK Local, State, and federal regulations have been enacted to proviprotection and management of sensitive biological and wetland resources. The f key local, State, and federal regulations that apply to these re F EDERAL The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for protection of terrestrial and freshwater organisms through implementation of the federal Endan the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The U.S. Army Corps of En primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps also regulates navigable waters under Section 10 (33 U Harbors Act. S TATE The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the responsible agency for administration of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and for prote and water bodies through the Streambed Alteration Agreement proc et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is also required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into n Section 401 of the CWA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters of the State not regulated by the Corps under the Porter-Cologne Act. The following discusses in more detail how State a federal regulations address special-status species, wetlands and other sensitive natural communities. P3-28 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST S-SS PECIALTATUS PECIES Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected federal ESAs, theMigratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Fish and Game Code (se 22 3503.5, 3511, 3513, 3515, and 4700), or other regulations. In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, special-status species also include other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning lo communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal State ESAs often represent major constraints to development; parre wide ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where pro in a take of these species. WOWUS ETLANDS AND THER ATERS OF THE NITED TATES Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generallyd to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as i national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration and purificatio and RWQCB have jurisdiction over modifications to river banks, l other wetland features. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed the Corps and the USFWS, which generally define wetlands through criteria: hydrology, soils, and vegetation. The CWA was enacted to address water pollution, establishing regulations and permit requirements regarding construction activities that affect storm operations, and water quality standards. The regulatory program surface waters be controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program which applies to sources of water runoff, public facilities. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps is responsible for regulof fill material into waters of the United States. The term waters in-wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria as defined in the Co three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be identified as a wetland under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by h permit must be obtained before fill can be placed in wetlands or Special-status species include: designated (rare, threatened, or endangered) and candidate species 22 designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act those identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the California Native Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2001); and possibly other species which are considered sensitive due to limited distribution or information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal Inventory or identified as California Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW. Species designated as a SSC have no legal protecti status under the California Endangered Species Act but are of co populations and other factors. P3-29 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST States. The type of permit is determined by the Corps depending on the amount of acreage and the purpose of the proposed fill. Certain activities in wetlands or other waters are automatical nationwide permit which allows filling where impacts are considered minor. Eligibility for a nationwide permit simplifies the permit review process. Nationw and fill of waters of the U.S. for a variety of routine activiti utility line crossings, streambank protection, recreational facilities and outfall structures. A project must demonstrate that it has no more than a minimal adve ecosystem, including species listed under the ESA to qualify for this means that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage o appropriate mitigation where fill activities are proposed. The Corps assumes discretionary approval over proposed projects significant, requiring adequate mitigation and permit approval. To provi EPA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an applicant must demonstrate that unavoidable and is the least environmentally damaging practicablthat will achieve the overall project purpose. The 1990 Memorandum of Agreement b Corps concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Guide with the first priority to avoid impacts, the second to minimize impacts, and the third to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas is estab et seq. of the Fish and Wildlife Code, which pertains to activities thatld disrupt the natural flow or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or s stipulates that it is unlawful to substantially divert or obstru change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream or lake without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Al Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFW states that the Fish and W strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands, unless, at a minimum, pr mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland h CDFW is also responsible for commenting on projects requiring Co and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. In addition, the RWQCB is responsible for upholding state water Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a Corps permit f material, and projects that qualify for a Nationwide Permit must obtain water quality cer from the RWQCB. The RWQCB is also responsible for regulating we- Cologne Act, which may include hydrologically isolated wetlands Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Recent federal Su limited the limits of Corps jurisdiction, but the RWQCB in some jurisdiction over these features. SNC ENSITIVE ATURAL OMMUNITIES Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the State, in addition to species-oriented management. Protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is considered the most effective means of providing long-term protection of ecologically viable habitat, and can include whole watersheds, e P3-30 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST communities. Providing functional habitat connectivity between sustaining healthy wildlife populations and allowing for the continued dispersal of native plant and animal species. Although sensitive natural communities have no protected legal s Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protecthe CEQA Guidelines identify potential impacts on a sensitive natural com criteria. As anexample, a discretionary project that is constructed on any ripa grassland, valley oak woodland, or other sensitive natural community would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Fur community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habi abundance, quality,and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the spe community type. Where determined to be significant under CEQA, require mitigation through avoidance, minimization of disturbanc compensatory mitigation when unavoidable. CSSF ITY OF OUTH AN RANCISCO GeneralPlan The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitivend resources that are applicable to the site. The following policies are excerpted from the Citys 1999 General Plan. 7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within o Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare. 7.1-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarsh o 7.1-I-2: As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master o institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive areas, including Sign Hill Park, Colma Creek Linear Park, Bayfro other City-owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1. 7.1-I-3: As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive o habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re-establishment of the invasive species and restore the native spe 7.1-I-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-1 to complete o assessments of biological resources. 7.1-I-5: Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding o for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects. Municipal Code South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a Protected Tree as one with a circumference of 48 or more when measured 54 above natural gra designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uni public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance o P3-31 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determine others for survival. FLS IELD AND ITERATURE TUDY Field Survey A field survey was conducted on November 3, 2015. Site location and features were reviewed using local street maps, USGS 7.5 minute quad sheets (San Franci maps. The Project presently consists of a steep hillside with access from the north side of the lot from Larch Avenue. Vegetation consists of introduced grasses and plan have spread from nearby gardens. As noted above, Sign Hill abuts the Project site to the southeast. The northern and northeastern facing slopes of Sign Hill, consisting of approximately 46 acres, are in private ownership. Sign Hill Park is located on the south facing slopes of the hill, is owned by the City and is public park and recreation land. The Project site is vegetated mainly with introduced grasses, weeds, and escaped exotics, and is considered a mixture of Non-Native Annual Grassland and Ruderal (disturbed) habitats. Plant that were observed on the northern portion of the site adjacent to the LarchAvenue roadway are dominated by introduced rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), wild-oat (Avena barbata), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata). Scattered plants of Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) covering an estimated areas of 40 square feet were also noted. The upper slopes of the property are dominated by clumps of introduced Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.) as well as Algerian ivy (Hedera algeriensis), Pittosporum (Pittosporum sp.) and scattered pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Native plants included toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California blackberry (Rubus californicus), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) A pine tree (Pinus sp.) about 11 inches diameter breast height (dbh), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), about 18 inches dbh and a Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa)) about 24 inches dbh are located on the Project site. For purposes of the CEQA analysis we assume all three trees would be removed, as a conservative estimate. Very little wildlife was seen on the Project site. Burrows of Bott Thomomys bottae) were present, generally scattered over the site. Birds that would be expected are those adapted to residential areas such as house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), California towhee (and Anna's Melozone crissalis) hummingbird (Calypte anna). Several common species of salamander including slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) and arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris) would also be expected to be present. No ponded surface water or natural channels were observed on the Project site nor was there any evidence for the pooling of water over the winter rainy seas P3-32 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Literature Survey Special Status Species On the basis of a review of the California Natural Diversity Datbase report from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Project area (CNDDB, 2015; CNPS, Rare Plant Program, 2015) and general knowledge of special status species of plants and animals in the San Francisco Bay area, a table was developed of the potential special status plants and animals known from the vicinity of the Project (Appendix A,Michael Marangio, Biological Resources Assessment Prepared for Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting, Proposed Residence, 901 Larch Avenu San Francisco, California. November 10, 2015, Tables A and B). All listed potential animal species such as fishes requiring permanent aquatic habitats werempact analysis since suitable aquatic habitat is not present on the Project site. Additionally, plants and animals requiring marshlands were also eliminated from further analysis because such habitats are also not present on the Project site.Most of the species on the lists have specialized habitat requirements that are not present on the Project site, and therefore would not be expected to be locatedon the site. The issues of special status wildlife species, migratory birds, protected trees, and sensitive plant species are evaluated for potential Project impacts. The following is a summary of the biology of these species and issues, including a discussion of the potential for their presence withi Project area and the potential impacts of the Project on these resources. To provide a more thorough analysis, several special status wildlife species known-2 mile of the Project or which are otherwise deemed to be potentially present in the Projalso discussed. The San Francisco Forktail Damselfly General Background. The San Francisco forktail damselfly, (Ishnura gemina), has no protection under Federal or State statutes and is found in very localized urban areas. Several small populations have gone extinct since their discovery. Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. A documented location (CNDDB 2015) indicates its presence about 3.0mi SSWof the Project site. Historically,some populations have been extirpated due to urbanization and some habitat has naturally converted from small shallow ponds to dry pond beds. The species is associated with marshy aquatic habitat, non Project site. Therefore, the Project would not have any significant impact on this species. California Red-legged Frog General Background. The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (CRLF) is listed by the USFWS as Threatened and is classified by the CDFW as a Species of SpecThe frog breeds primarily in ponds, but will also breed in slow moving streams, ools in intermittent streams and is seldom found in brackish waters. Inhabited ponds are typically p 2 feet (0.6 meters) in depth, and contain emergent and shoreline Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. CNDDB (2015) documents the presence of this protected species about 3 miles south southeast of the Project site. Since no aquatic habitat is present on the P3-33 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Project site, nor is any suitable aquatic habitat nearby,the site would not provide suitable habitat, either aquatic or upland. No impacts to the CRLF would result from the Project. Callippe SilverspotButterfly General Background. The Callippe silverspot butterfly(Speyeria callippe callippe) is listed as federally endangered. The historic range of Callippe silverspot includes the inner Coast Ranges on the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay from northwestern Contra C Valley in Alameda County and from San Francisco south to La Hond the west side of the Bay. This butterfly has been found at San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill in San Mateo County, in the hills near Pleasanton in Alameda County County, and in the hills between Vallejo and Cordelia in Solano Callippe silverspot butterfly occurs mainly in native grassland. Female butterfl on its larval foodplant, Johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata). After one week, the larvae hatch and shelter within ground litter where they spend the summer andthe spring the larvae eat the leaves of Johnny jump-up, pupate, and emerge as butterflies between mid-May and mid-July. The main causes of this species' decline is the loss and urban development. Nectar sources include Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), coyote mint (Monardella villosa), hairy false goldenaster (Heterotheca (Chrysopsis) villosa), coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), mourning bride (Scabrosa atropurpurea), buckeye (Aesculus californica), narrow leaf mule-ears (Wyethia angustifolia), and California Horkelia (Horkelia californica). Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. This species is known on Sign Hill (CNDDB 2015). However, the habitat on the Project site is for the most part unsuitable for Callippe Silverspot butterflies. Much of the site is dominated by non-native grasses, weedy annuals, and introduced vines and non-native trees. San Bruno Elfin Butterfly General Background.The San Bruno Elfin Butterfly(Incisalia mossii bayensis) is federally endangered. The butterflyinhabits rocky outcrops and cliffs in coastal scrub on the San Fr; its patchy distribution follows the location of its host plant, s Sedum spathulifolium). Adults of this butterfly emerge in early spring, in February and March. They m thereafter and deposit eggs on the stonecrop plants. The eggs ty June, most will have completed their larval development, at which timehost plant to pupate in ground litter. They lie dormant as pupae until the include common Lomatium (Lomatium utriculatum), buttercup (Ranunculus californicus), and Achillea (Achillea millefolium). Typical habitat includes steep, north-facing slopes in foggy locations. The San Bruno Elfin is restricted to a few small populations, the largest of which occu north of the Project. Its habitat has been reduced in the past b-road recreation, and urban development. To protect this as well as the Mission Bl Conservation Plan has been implemented on San Bruno Mountain, in were opened for development while the higher areas were protecte P3-34 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Occurrence in the Project Vicinity.The closest known documentation of the presence of this butterfl is about 2.8 miles to the north (CNDDB 2015). Suitable habitat conditions including host and nectar plants are not present on the Project site. Therefore nosignificant impacts to this species would resultfrom the Project. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly General Background. The Bay Checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bayensis)has a life cycle which may include several different host plants. Following mating in mid-spring, the female butterflies lay their eggs on a native plantain, Plantago erecta. If the plantain is not sufficient for development, the larvae may move onto one of two species of owl's clover (Castilleja (Orthocarpus) densiflorus or C. exserta). Generally, one season is insufficient for completion of development and must enter dormancy until the following winter,when the rains allow plant growth to begin again. The larvae then emerge to feed for a little longer, pupatults emerge shortly thereafter. Habitat is often found on outcrops of serpentine soil. Nectar plgoldfields (Lasthenia californica), tidy tips (Layia spp.), serrated onion (Allium serra), seaside muilla (Muilla maritima), and Lomatium (Lomatium spp). Populations of the Bay Checkerspot historically inhabited numero areas around the San Francisco Bay including the San Francisco p San Jose, the Oakland hills, and several locations in Alameda Coow known only from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Changing dis grazing) as well as introduced grassland plants have caused decl Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. The closest known population is located about one mile north of the Project. The Project site contains unsuitable habitat with no evidence of the presence of habitat for host plants (owl's clover) or nectar plants. Therefore, the Project site is not suitable habitat for Bay Checkerspot Butterflies and no impacts would result from the Project. Mission Blue Butterfly General Background.The Mission Blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) was formerly relatively widespread on the San Francisco and Marin peninsulas. Now the Mission Blueis restricted to a few sites in these areas. Approximately 2,000 acres of habitat for the butterfly is being managed by the San Mateo County Department of Parks and Recreation on San Bruno Mountain. The butterfly's required habitat is coastal scrub. Larvae of the Mission Blue emerge from a dormant state in early spring. Host plants consist mainly of per Lupinus albifrons, L. variicolor, and L. formosus). Nectar plants include Eriogonum latifolium and Brodiaea pulchella. The larvae eventually enter the ground to pupate. Several weeks late feed on lupine nectar, mate and lay eggs. The eggs hatch within a few weeks before they enter dormancy until the following spring when they will complete their development. Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. The Mission Blue butterfly is documented to be present on Sign Hill (CNDDB 2015) as well San Bruno Mountain to the north. Habitat providing suitable host and nectar plants is not present on the Project site. The Project would not result in impacts to this species. P3-35 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST I MPACTS a)Special-Status Species Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant impact if were to result in adverse effect on special-status species, as identified in 3.5 Biological Resources, section a, above. The disturbed nature of the site,resulting from previousgrading to construct Larch Avenue, unstable soil conditions,and the spread of invasive weed species to the site from outside and adjacent sources has resulted in the elimination of the original consisted of grassland and coastal scrub. The spread of invasiv construction activities on the site greatly reduces the potential for the presence of federal and state protected plants. The lack of native vegetative cover als the presence of federal and state protected animal life. None of the existing vegetation includes any sensitive habitats. Plant Species of Special Concern. The Project site is highly disturbed. The plants that dominate site consist mainly of introduced invasive annual plants, along -native treesand shrubs. A reconnaissance survey was conducted on November 3, 2015. No habitat for special status species of plants were observed and would not be expected because of the general disturbed nature of the site dominated by introduced plant species. No sensitive plant species would be affected by the Project. Animal Species of Special Concern. Suitable wildlife habitat on the site was limited to conditions that could support introduced and species that tolerate human disturburban conditions. The dominance of introduced non-native annual plants limits the value of the habitat to only "generalist" species that can tolerate disturbed conditi sources. As a result of the small size of the parcel (0.17 acres) and the dominance of non-native annual plant species, the Project site would be highly unlikely to suppo animal species (which are generally "specialist" species that require c food that are not present). About 40 square feet of non-native Italianthistle plants that are a nectar source for the Callippe Silverspot butterfly were observe this small amount of potential nectar source would not result in The Project would have no impact on special-species or species of concern. b) and c) Jurisdictional Habitat Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substa sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlandsandWaters of the U.S. as identified in Biological Resources 3.5, sections b and c, above. Generally speaking, wetlands are legally defined as areas that a water, have soils that indicate the presence of water, and have he presence of water. A formal protocol for wetland analysis was noconducted. General observations revealed that the ground surface of the Project sit P3-36 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST basins or other depressions were noted where water would likely ing the winter rainy season. A constructed ditch presently draining water off the steep hillsevidence of hydraulic processes that indicate wetland hydrology or vegetation. Therefore no federal or state-protected wetlands are present. Further wetland analysis regarding jurisdictional evaluation is not required. There are no special plant or animal species of concern or habit identified in section a, above. The Project would have no impact on any sensitive natural communities or jurisdictional wetlands. d) Native Fish and Wildlife Movement Opportunities, Nesting Habitat, and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corrid native wildlife nursery sites. Wildlife movements include migration (i.e., usually one way per season), inter-population movement (i.e., long-term genetic flow) and small travel pathways (i.e., daily moveme an animals territory). While small travel pathways usually faci range activities, such as foraging or escape from predators, they also provide connection between outlying populations, permitting an increase in gene flo These linkages among habitat types can extend for miles from pri on a large scale throughout California. Habitat linkages facilitate movemen located in small, discrete areas and populations located within larger habitat are habitats found within a large-scale landscape results in wildlife populations that consist of discrete sub-populations comprising a large single population, which is often meta-population. The movement between wildlife populations is facilitated through linkages, migration corridors and movement corridors even where patches of pristine habitat are fragmented. Potentially low frequency genetic flow may lead to c pressures promoting mortality are strong, potential extinction. The Project would result in the construction of a residence on a 0.17 acre site where houses are present immediately to the west, north, and east on similar-sixed lots with open space to the southeast. The Project in its undeveloped state does not presently provide suitable habitat since residential development generally surrounds the site to the west east. Therefore the Project would have no significant impact on biolog with regard to movement corridors. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects all common wild birds found in the United States except certain introduced species and certain game birds. abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or the loss of ha depend would be in violation of the MBTA. California Fish and Game (CFG) Code section 3503 also makes it illegal to destroy any birds nest or any bir P3-37 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST the MBTA. CFG Code section 3503.5 further protects all birds of prey, such as hawks and owl, and their eggs and nests from any form of taking. Although no nesting birds were observed, the large trees and bruat the Project site may provide suitable cover for nesting of birds, including birds of summer seasons. Nest disturbance as a result of proposed tree and brush removal would be considered a breach of MBTA regulations and would be a significa The Project would remove the three trees on the site. There is the potential for raptors(birds of prey) and other protected birds to nest on the site, and adjacent to the site. These birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code section 3503.5. Disturbance of birds during the nesting season that results in loss of nestlings would be a significant environmental impact. The Applicant, as identified in the Setting Section above, Chapter 2 Project Description and Appendix A, proposes to remove the trees outside of nesting season. The Applicant notes that if trees are removed during nesting season, a biologist will survey the site no more than 15 days prior to t be followed. The Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources with regard to native wildlife movement opportunities or nursery sites because the Applicant will either remove trees outside of nesting season or follow the during nesting season. Tree removal may not commence until a qualified biologist conducts a preconstruction survey for protected birds on the site and in the imme vicinity. The survey will be done no more than 15 days prior to construction activities. In the event that nesting birds are fo the immediate vicinity, the Applicant will locate and map the nest site(s days and submit a report to the City and California Department o ("CDFW"), establish a no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet, and conduct on-going weekly surveys to ensure the no-disturbance buffer is maintained. In the event of destruction of a nest with eggs, or if a juvenile or adult raptor should become injured or killed, the qualified biologist will immediately notiified biologist will coordinate with the CDFW to have the injured bird raptor recovery center or, in the case of mortality, transfer i hours of notification. e) Local Policies and Ordinances Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biolog preservation policy or ordinance. General Plan The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan contains a number of policies related to protection of sensitive that are applicable to the Project. These policies are implemented through the biological resource assessment and this CEQA analysis. The biological resource assessment found no P3-38 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST biological or wetlands resources on the site.The following contains an analysis of General Plan policies identified in the Setting Section. General Plan Open Space Policy 7.1-I-2: As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update, institute an ongoing program to remove invasive pla including Sign Hill Park, Colma Creek Linear Park, Bayfront Liner City-owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1. The Project site does not contain habitat or ecologically sensitive areas, and will not contain invasive plant species that could enter hab General Plan Open Space Policy 7.1-I-3: As part of development approvals on sites that include ecolog sensitive habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re- establishment of the invasive species and restore the native species. This policy does not directly apply to the Project. The Project site is affected by invasive exotic pla to be ecologically significant; therefore there is no habitat to protect. The Project site is separated from Sign Hill Park by privately-owned land with an Open Space designation, although the zoning designation could permit limited low-density development, as noted in Chapter 2, Project Description. The Project will be required by Fire Department Condition of Approval #12 (see Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 3.6) to landscape with non-invasive plantings to minimize the potential for brush fire. The condition also benefits the biolo General Plan, Open Space Policies 7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within San Francisco, including species that are State or federally lis-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and wetlands; 7.1-I-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-1 to complete assessments of biological resources and 7.1-I-5: Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetection and restoration projects . There are no special status habitats, saltmarshes or wetlands present on the Project site based upon the findings of the biological resource assessment. Municipal Code Three trees will be removed as a result of the proposed house construction. Since none have a diameter greater than 48 inches dbh, South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 covering "Protected Trees" will not need to be considered. There are no trees on the site that meet the Citys definition of protected tree, and no impacts are anticipated. Further, preparation of a biological assessment and analysis of potential may have on sensitive biological and wetlands resources is consi and area plan policies. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) Conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan or Community Cons Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with ahabitat or community conservation plan or other approved local, habitat conservation plan protecting biological resources. P3-39 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The Project site is not within a habitat conservation plan area and contains no habit suitable for conservation. The Project would not impact an adopted habitat conservation pla Biology Finding: After review of CNDDB reports and map overlays for the general Project area, and field evaluations of the site, the habitatwas found to be highly disturbed and isolated from other areas containing sensitive habitat. The Applicant proposes tree removal outside of nesting season or in compliance with biological protocol for proAs a result, the site is considered to be of very low value for plants and wildlife ingeneral and as well for sensitive species of plants and animals. No significant biol full development of the Project site. 3.6CR ULTURAL ESOURCES PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than SignificantSignificant Significant No with ImpactImpactImpact Mitigation Would the Project: X a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? S ETTING RF EGULATORY RAMEWORK CEQA relies on the criteria identified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15064.5(3).In summary, these criteria include consideration ofwhether the building: A.Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution of California history and cultural heritage; B.Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C.Embodiesthe distinctive characteristics of type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative in high artistic values; or, D.Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory o A lead agency does not have to rely solely on the above criterion and may appropriateness of a potential resource based upon age. Commonl basis by which to consider a structures potential historic signch a more P3-40 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST detailed and rigorous analysis is required to determine actual osection 15064.5, California Code of Regulations). Archaeological resources are evaluated pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.2. If it is determined that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource the lead agency may require reaso resource to remain in situ. Plan construction to avoid the reso conservation easement; cap the resource with a layer of soil prior to building; and plannin park or open space to incorporate the resource are listed as app (b). A mitigation plan is required if disturbance of the resourper subsection (c). Subsection (e) identifies not-to-exceed mitigation cost maximums for archaeological resources. I MPACTS a) Historic Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defsection 15064.5. There are no structures on the site. Consequently, there are no historical resources or structures on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. b - d) Archaeological Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolo section 15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those cemeteries. Native Americans, over 5,000 years ago, typically settled along the margins of San Francisco Bay. The Project site is upland and remote, more than a mile from historic baylands, and approximately two miles west of a known archaeological site along the historic baylands. Geotechnical borings conducted in 2000 (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils) to a depth of 15 feet indicate subsurface soils consisting of native soil to a defollowed by bedrock. The soil is clayey sand and the bedrock is sandstone with minor of culturally significant soils in the sample such as shell, pottery, or bone fragments. The geotechnical report (GeoTrinity, May 1, 2015) notes that soi are present on the northeastern portion of site, as undocumentedhe grading and paving associated with construction of the road and subdivision, would have destroyed culturally significance soils in the unlikely event they had once been present in the area. Project impacts associated with archaeological resources are less than significant due to the location of the Project, more than a mile from the historic bayl significant soils present in the geotechnical boring, and the grading that occurred in the P3-41 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 1950s.The Project would have a less than significant impact on archaeological or paleontological resources. Cultural Resources Finding: There are no structures on the Project site. The Project would have a less than significant impact on archaeological or paleontgiven it is more than a mile from the historic baylands, contains no culturally significant soils in the geotechnical boring, and the disturbance from the grading that occurred in the 1950s. 3.7GS EOLOGY AND OILS PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than Significant Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? P3-42 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST S ETTING The 901 Larch Avenue Project site contains geological constraints including a very steep slope, shallow slope instability (i.e., two foot deep and six foot wide one off site, and an upslope fill prism. The Project is located within the Sterling Terrace single- th family residential neighborhood. The subdivision was constructemid-20 century. The Project site is one of the few remaining vacant lots in the area B ACKGROUND Typically, the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone with utilities and infrastructure in place is categorically exempt from the CEQA re CEQA Guidelines section 15303, Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Sere are exceptions to exemptions as stated in CEQAGuidelines section 15300.2, subsection (a). Subsection (a) clearly states Class 3 exemptions are qualified b would be located. The subsection further notes a project that inself is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive Therefore, if a project might be located in a biological habitat slopes, or on properties known to have environmental contamination (hazardous materials), exception to the exemption noted above requires the lead agency which may be satisfied by utilizing the sample forms provided in CEQA Guidelines. The site contains steep and potentially unstable slopes, therefore the City has prepared this initial study. F R EGULATORY RAMEWORK CPA ONDITIONS OF ROJECT PPROVAL Chapter 1, Legislative Framework, Sections 4 and 5 outlines the Citys standard review process and conditions of project approval. The Citys Engineering Division is requiring the following as conditions of Project approval should the Project be approved (Mr. Sam Bautista, City Engineer, Memorandum to Ms. Adena Friedman, Senior Planner. November 14, 2015). 1.The building permit application plans shall conform to the stand Divisions Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals requi which are available from the Engineering Division. 2.The owner shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practic surveying to certify that the new foundation forms for the new s conform with all setbacks shown on the approved building permit from confirmed property lines and that any easements are verified with recorded documents. A letter certifying that the foundatio correctly shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for app the proposed new buildings foundations. P3-43 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.The owner shall, at his/her expense, repair any broken sidewalk, curb, and gutter along the entire frontage of the property, prior to r inspection for the new building. 4.The owner shall install a City Standard property line sewer cleano City Standard Drawings, so that the building sewer lateral can b work shall be accomplished at the applicants cost. 5.The owner shall, at his expense, design and construct a drainage system that will route storm water run-off from the new buildings roof areas and shall be collected wi property and directed towards the public street gutter. Downspouts must first discharge to landscaping before directing it towards the public street and cannot be dire plumbed to the storm water system. Storm water generated from th into adjacent private property or across the public sidewalk. 6.Due to the geotechnical sensitivity of the Project, the owner shall contact the Citys geotechnical consultant, Cotton Shires & Associates, to provide and inspection services before and during the construction of th shall place a $25,000 deposit forgeotechnical services rendered to the owner. Should the cost of geotechnical services exceed the deposit, the owner shal for any additional costs. 7.Prior to obtaining the building permit, the owner shall obtain ahe owner shall pay all associated fees and deposits for the grading 8.Any work to be performed in the Citys right-of-way shall require an encroachment from the Engineering Division. The owner shall apply for and pay all fees and deposits for the encroachment permit. GRRC EOTECHNICAL EPORTS EQUIRED BY ITY The City Engineering Division requires geotechnical reports as a projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuil, and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading (see Chapter 1, Section 5). Geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical en The reports include a detailed site characterization study, an analysis of potential hazards and design specifications to mitigate the potential hazards.The reports identify design and construction specifications for (among other items) grading, site stabilization, drainage, utility and infrastructure design and placement, foundation design, retaining wall specifications and placement, and soil compaction requirements. The reports are peer reviewed by the Citys geotechnical consultant and are often modified through this process. The final geotechn report is required to incorporate the modifications recommended by the Citys consultant and the project is required to be built as identified through this p. The types of grading and construction methods that are required reduce geotechnical impacts (i.e., expansive soils, liquefaction, differential settlement, severe ground shaking, etc.) to the maximum extent technically feasible. P3-44 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The Applicants geotechnical consultant is GeoTrinity and the Citys is Cotton Shires Associates (CSA). The site characterizationand methods by which to grade and construct the Project was conducted by GeoTrinity and peer reviewed by CSA. CSA provided t that the geotechnical issues were adequately characterized by Ge methods necessary to reduce geotechnical hazards to the maximum extent technically feasible will reduce geotechnical impacts to less than significant (Octob Appendix A). As excerpted from the October2, 2015letter by CSA: The applicant proposes to construct a three-story, single-family residence on an undeveloped hillside lot at the western end of Larch Avenue. The daylighting basement including the garage. In our previous peer May 26, 2015), we recommended that seven geotechnical comments be satisfactorily addressed prior to geotechnical approval of site layout or build time, revised site development plans for a somewhat smaller resi prepared. RECENT GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS The Project Geotechnical Consultant (GTC) has responded to all comments of our previous geotechnical peer review. GTC has concluded that projec the eastern property line will not affect the adjacent existing house. The Consultant has recommended that proposed retaining walls to be located below th fill wedge should include a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard (west Final plans are to include surface drainage ditches atop retaining walls along the southwestern and southeastern sides of the residence. Installati catchment fence has been recommended along the eastern property downslope of the excavation work. An estimated project construct of April 2016 has been presented. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The Project Geotechnical Consultant has adequately responded to recommendations of our previous geotechnical peer review. We rec geotechnical approval of applications associated with proposed site development with the following conditions: 1.Final Design Plan Details  Final project construction plans shall include retaining walls with a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard on the dow side of the existing fill wedge along the western edge of the property and surface drainage ditches should be detailed atop retaining walls southwestern and southwestern sides of the residence (per GTC, September 23, 2015). Prior to initiation of grading, a temporary fence shall be installed along the eastern property line and downslope of the excavation work (per GTC direction). P3-45 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 2.Geotechnical Construction Inspections -The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical a project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessari be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and s drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retai walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter a submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granti occupancy) project approval. The Applicant proposes all the requirements of both GTC and CSA as part of the Project. The required measures are identified in Chapter 2, Project Description. Appendix A and contain a document signed by Applicant attesting to understanding the meashey are proposed as part of the Project, and they will be included on the building permit plan set that w on the Project site from commencement to completion of grading and construction activities (Environmental Mitigation Measures [proposed by Applicant], Vinal Nand. December 2, 2015). Moreover, Ms. Adena Friedman, Senior Planner will also include a requiring the Applicant to incorporate all the measures listed i The letter addresses biology, geology, and noise measures to reduce Project impacts to less than significant (as vetted in the Chapter 3 Sections 3.5, 3.7 and 3.13). The Project geotechnical reports and peer review are listed below, used to analyze geologic and soils impacts and located in full in Appendix A. Applicants Reports GeoTrinity GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, California. May 1, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Supplemental Letter for May 2015 Report and August 6, 2015 Plans.August 18, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Response to Peer Review Letter. September 23, 2015. City Peer ReviewCotton Shires Associates Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenue. May 26, 2015. Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenue. October 2, 2015. P3-46 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST SGC ITE EOLOGIC HARACTERIZATION Previous Site Characterization As summarized by GeoTrinity (May 2015), Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers (EMC) performed a geotechnical investigationbased on a schematic site plan showing only the footprint of a proposed residence on the site. EMCs investigation included a boring near the center of the building site that was drilled andsampled to adepth of 15 feet. The subsurface materials encountered consisted of native soil to a depth of two feet overlying bedrock to the bottom of the boring. The soil consisted of clayeysand,andthe bedrock consisted of sandstone with minor siltstone. The location of the boring byGruen(2000, see Appendix A) is shown in Figure 3 in Appendix A, along with a copy oftheir boring log. CSA conducted a 2002 peer review on behalf of the City. A 2003 report by Gruen and Peterson provided additional geologic conclusions, including verbal and graphic descriptions of surficial condition review letter by CSA presented geologic and engineering comments on the 2003 report by Gruen and Peterson andon the gradingand construction thatwasproposed at that time. 2015 Site Characterization The vacant site is located on a northwest-plunging ridge spur of Sign Hill. Elevations on the property vary from 476 feet in the southern corner to 404 feet in thenorthern corner. (Note: GeoTrinitys elevations are adjusted using mean sea level as the north at an overall gradient of 2¼ H:lV but varies from2 ½ H:1V in the southern (uphill) half of the property to approximately l H:1V in thecentralportion and 5H:1V in the northern corner of the property, near Larch Avenue. GeoTrinity surmises t property was steepened and lowered from the cut and grading ofLarchAvenue in the mid- 20th century. This onsite grading was blended into the cut for theneighboringproperties to the southwest and northeast. GeoTrinity observed surface evidence of two minor feet across by 2 feet deep) recent earthflowscars at approximate 425 foot elevation, near the crest of the s slope. A similar scar was mapped at approximately a 440 foot elevation on the neighboring lot tothe southwest where once was located a water storage tank. Thesearthflows evidently produced shallow earthflow deposits along the base of the slope; their limits are obscured by vegetation and are conjectured by GeoTrinity. There of water on the pad where the former water tank was located. GeoTried no evidence of significant erosion aside from the aforementioned earthflow scars. Bonilla (1998, see Appendix A) mapped the geology of a large area that includes the subject site. The Project site is underlain by Cretaceous to Jurassicsandstone and shale bedrock of the Franciscan Complex and associated rocks. The landslide map of the area by Bonilla (1960 shows no landslides on or appreciably near the site. GeoTrinity observed six exposures of the bedrock in four artific outcrops nearthe site. These exposures and the boring by Gruen (2000) also indicate that the P3-47 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST bedrock consistsofCretaceous to Jurassic sandstone and siltstone. This bedrock underlies the Project site above approximately a 430 foot elevation. GeoTrinity estimates that soft to hard, massive (very thickly bedded) sandstone comprises approx and very soft, thinly bedded siltstonecomprises theremainder. The northern third of the site is generally underlain by the unitofPleistocene slope wash and ravine fill deposits of Bonilla (1998). This material likely thickens downslope (to the north) to adepth of 5-10 feet below the ground surface in the northern comer of the site. The materialconsists of dark yellowish (nearly reddish) brown, dense, silty sand with subangular rock fragments up to two inches in diameter derived from older sandstone bedroc material. GeoTrinity notes excavated blocks ½ foot in diameter w several weeks; however their outer surfaces will melt (slake) whe to 0.4 inches). Colluvium blankets the bedrock to a depth of app1½ feet consisting of gray gravelwith sand and clay. There is a wedge of fill on the neighboring propertytothe southwest. The fill was placed to create a level pad for the former 50,000-gallonwater tank, is approximately 4 feet thick, and presumably consists ofgravelly (angularfragmentsderived frombedrock), sandy soilthat was placed atop the colluvium. Thin earthflow deposits blanket the low lying part of the site. The lens of material consists of loose gravellysandand is anestimated2feetthick. GeoTrinity observed no evidence of landslide deposits on or appreciably near the site, and no such deposits were documented intheprevious work based on the topography and subsurface exposures. Free groundwater was not encountered in the boring drilled and logged by Gruen (2000), nor wasany seepageobserved during GeoTrinity site visits inMarch, andApril, 2015. These conditions, were observed during dry times of year, and it may be expected t stormwaterrunoff may infiltrate the subsurface and saturate the ground, wh filling of andconsequent seepage from fractures in the bedrock. Fluctuations in groundwater levels willoccur due toseasonal changes, variations in rainfall, and other factors. GeoTrinity documented rock discontinuities near the site at fourat exposerelatively fresh rock. Additionally, two major discontinuities i weredocumented in two outcrops nearby (see Appendix A). GeoTrinitys analysis focused on potential adverse conditions and potentialeffects on the Project and neighboring properties. Potential adverse conditions include wedge failures resulting from daylighting of shears (faults), bedding, and other discontinuities joints in the proposed excavated cuts. No shears were observed. Fracturing throughout the site and area is generally intense to very intense, particularly in the siltstone, although the siltstone beds are generally less than 1 foot thick approximately 5% of the rock mass in general. The joint patterns are also such th primary joints in agiven exposure can be traced more than a few feet and the remainare essentially randomly oriented and discontinuous. The blocks of rock between are cut by veryclosely spaced fractures thatextendno more thanafew inches and appearto be randomlyoriented. Allofthe discontinuities generally display very thin coatings of iron and manganese oxides and are otherwise tight. According to CSA, there is nearby competent bedding exposed above the Project site and underlying the steep slope at Sign Hill. These P3-48 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST bedded rock materials are fractured but not intensely fractured. fractured intensely enough to cause settlement issues or other f potential for unstable rocks at the site comes primarily from the intersection of joints with bedding, and fractures may be induced into the rock as part of t(Ted Sayre electronic mail, December 9, 2015). SF EISMIC AULTS No active earthquake faults have been recognized within the immediate site area. Although the site and vicinity is believed to be free of active faults, the S within a seismically active region. The dominant fault in this located about 2.9 miles northwest of the site. Other active faults in the area include the Sa Gregorio fault located roughly 7.5 miles westand the Hayward-Rodgers approximately 15.7 miles northeast. The Hillside fault, a northwesterly-trending escarpment aligned with a zone of sheared rocks on the knoll of Point San Bruno just south of Oyster Point, has als from the Project site. Until the late 1990s this fault was cons Subsequent geophysical studies conducted in the late 1990s using a more accurate high-powered deep-penetrating sonar system found no evidence suggesting that the H active. Moreover, geologic observations of the Hillside fault eaded cuts on San Bruno Mountain did not detect any recognizable offsets of current fault rupture hazard. Therefore, there is no evidence t within geologically recent time; however, it may be possible for sympathetic movements to be imposed on this fault as a result of stress from major earthquak San Andreas and Hayward-Rodgers faults. I MPACTS Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazard liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced grou i)Surface Fault Rupture Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it w expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse eff rupture of a known earthquake fault. There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about threemiles southwest. The Hillside fault is located nearby, but there is no evidence that this fault has been active within geologically recent time.The Project would have no impact on exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. P3-49 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking; iii) Liquefaction; c) Geologic Instability and d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria: Strong Seismic Ground Shaking: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential su associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction: The Project would have a significant environmental expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse eff seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Geologic Instability: The Project would have a significant envir located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Expansive Soils: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, d likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic groud shaking originating on a nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accoun and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercalli Intensity estimates indicate that earthquake-shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic ev For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE) along the nearby San Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 7.9 and 7.4, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX, violent and VIII, very strong, respectively, at the Project (Association of Bay Area Governments, Seismic Hazard Maps). GCR identified the following seismic requirements for the Project, CSA peer reviewed and stated The Project Geotechnical Consultant has adequately respo of our previous geotechnical peer review. (CSA October 2, 2015) proposes the following measures GeoTrinity identified as part of the Project (see Appendix A), excerpted from Chapter 2, Project Description. GCR developed site-specific spectral seismic design parameters are based on the 2012 International Building Code,which is based on U.S. Geological Survey hazard data available in 2008. Thesedesignparameters are for use by the structural engineer when addressing potential seismic shaking indesigning theproposed residence, including retaining walls. Based on the specific site location by latitude and longitude, Ss and S1 are 2.092 g and 0.991 g,respectively. GCR classified the site as Site Class C, i.e., softrock, P3-50 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST basedonitsdensefracturepattern and an estimated average blow count value) (N of 90 in the 0-100-foot depth intervalbelow the site. Based on thesitelocation andspecificSiteClass C,GCR developed the seismic design parameters,summarized in Table 4, below: PDT4 ROJECT ESCRIPTION ABLE PSDP ROJECT EISMIC ESIGN ARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE S 2.092 g MS for 0.2-second period S1.288 g M1 for1.0-second period S1.394 g DS for 0.2 -second period S 0.859 g D1 for 1.0-second period The Project would result in a less than significant impact assocsevere groundshaking with implementation of the measures required by law and proposed as part of the Project. Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless s sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic load During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can mo vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefact uniformly-graded, fine-grained sands. The Project site would not likely experience seismically induced liq According to GeoTrinity (May 2015), the potential for liquefaction is low based upon the presence of bedrock and dense underlying soils. Project impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant. Expansive soils contain minerals such as smectite, bentonite, mo vermiculite, attapulgite, nontronite, illite,and chlorite. There are also some sulfate salts that will expand with changes in temperature. When a soil contains a large it has the potential of significantexpansion. When the soil contains very little expansive minerals, it has little expansive potential. The clays are capable of absorbing water and as they do so they increase in volume. The more water they absorb the more Expansions of ten percent or more are not uncommon. The change in volume can exert enough force on a building or other structure to cause damage. Cracked foundations, floors and basement walls are typical types of damage done by swelling soil Damage to the upper floors of the building can occur when motion in the structure is signif Expansive soils will also shrink when they dry out. This shrinkage can remove support from buildings or other struct and result in damaging subsidence. Fissures in the soil can also develop. These fissures can facilitate the deep penetration of water when moist conditions ounoff occurs. This produces a cycle of shrinkage and swelling that places repetitive stress on. The Project site would not likely experience impacts from expansive soils. According to GeoTrinity (May 2015), the site does not contain expansive materials such as smectite, bentonite, montmorillonite, beidellite, vermiculite, attapulgite, and P3-51 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST chlorite or sulfate salts.Project impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description and in the site characterization study above (GeoTrinity, May 2015),spalling rocks during construction could tumble down the site anon to adjacent property. According to Ted Sayre, (CSA, Principal Engi would likely be less than 8 inches in diameter. At the behest of CSA, GeoTrinity designed a rockfall fence (catchment device) to catch rocks and protect theresidence at 859 Larch Avenue.The Applicant as shown in Chapter 2,Project Description and Appendix A proposes the following as part of the Project. Final Design Plan Details Final Project construction plans will include retaining walls w 2 feet of freeboard on the downslope side of the existing fill w western edge of the property and surface drainage ditches will be detail retaining walls on the southwestern and southwestern sides of th GeoTrinity, September 23, 2015). Prior to initiation of grading, a tempora catchment fence will be installed along the eastern property line and downslope of the excavation work (per GeoTrinity direction). Geotechnical Construction Inspections The GCR will inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechn Project construction. The inspections will include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface d improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining wall placement of steel and concrete. P3-52 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the Project will be described by the GCR in a letter and submitted to the City Engin prior to City granting a Certificate of Occupancy. Engineering Condition of Approval #6, above, also requiresCSA review, inspections and recommendations, as necessary. The requirement for CSA to be on Applicant and proposed as part of the Project as shown in the following (see Appendix A, page 2, Nand). Detailed earthwork and foundation requirements for use in design and construction of therojectwill be implemented. GCR (or qualified successor) will review the final design andspecificationsto assure quality control. GCR will be on site full time during the initial gradingand intermittently during the remaining site work. GCRwill as necessary make changes to practices and methods to assur safety and stability of the Project and adjoining properties. CSA will be present on the Project site intermittently to oversee grading operations. The Project would have less than significant impacts associated with a geologic unit becoming unstable by implementing the measures identified by the Project geotechnical engineer, as modified by the Citys geotechnical consultant and as proposed by the Applicant. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslid A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. As noted above, Bonilla (1998, see Appendix A, GeoTrinity, May 2105) mapped the geology of a large area that includes the subject site. The Project site is underlain by Cretaceous to Jurassic sandstoneand shale bedrock of the Franciscan Complex. Design criteria for foundations, footings, retaining walls, soil compac part of the Project; all serve to stabilize the site. The landslide map of the area by Bonilla (1960) shows no landslides on or appreciably near thesite. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to landslides. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact i were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. The Project would require grading, and export of soil as well asof piles. The Citys requirements for a grading permit and material export (noted in conditions of approval #7 above) requires various vehicular and pedestrian safety measures site (such as soil on tires or falling out of dump trucks). In absence of the NPDES C-3 requirements enforced by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during constrThe NPDES P3-53 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST requirements are required and enforced by the CitysEngineering Division to reduce impacts associated with soil erosion and water pollution during both construction and operation of projects. These requirements are described in detail in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality and in Chapter 1, Section 5.Erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately he use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alt The Project site would be connected to the citys sanitary sewer system. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the Citys wastewater system. Geology and Soils Finding: There are no active faults underlying the site and the nearest one is the San Andreas Fault, located about 2.9 miles southwest. Implementation of the geotechnical measures required by law (the Citys standard permitting requirements for peer review of all geotechnical reports and the final recommendations Project) are proposed as part of the Project and identified in the CEQA document. Detailed earthwork and foundation requirements for design and constructiowill be implemented. GeoTrinity (or qualified successor) will review the final design and specif to assure quality control. GeoTrinity will be on site full time during the initial grading and intermittently during the remaining site workand will as necessary make changes to practices and methods to assure the safety and stability of the Project an. CSA will be present on the Project site intermittently to oversee grading measures identified by GeoTrinity and CSA would reduce geologic instability to less than significant. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the Citys wastewater system. P3-54 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.8HHM AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or X the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or X the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a X list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land X use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant X risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? P3-55 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST S ETTING The Project site, 901 Larch Avenue is vacant and located at the it intersects Larch Avenue, on the north facing slope of Sign Hill (s ee Project Description Figures1 ProjectArea and2 Project Location inChapter 2). The Project is located within a residential neighborhood consisting of single-family detached structures in the Sterling Terrace subdivision. The northern and northeastern facing slopes of Sign Hill, consis approximately 46 acres, are in private ownership. Sign Hill Park is located on the south facing slopes of the hill, is owned by the City and is public park and recreation land. The Project would construct a single-family residence consisting of approximately 2,500 square feet. Construction is proposed on the front thirdof the lot. Landscaping is proposed in the front, side and portions of the rear of the property. Japanese Maple, Winter Boxwood, Star Jasmine, camellia, and lavender are proposed (see Figure 2, Project Description). SR ENSITIVE ECEPTORS Residential, schools, child care facilities, schoolsand convalescent facilities are typically considered sensitive land uses. Heavy commercial and industrial land uses are typically considered potential sources of toxic or hazardous materials. The Project and the neighborhood within which it is located are considered sensitive receptors. RF EGULATORY RAMEWORK As noted above, the Project is considered a receptor and not a generator of haza The following regulatory framework is provided for informational purposes. Hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal aregoverned by the following standards and permitsat both the federal and state level. F EDERAL Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EPA, Regulatio, Part 720. o Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, administered by the Depa o Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171 et seq. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. o Hazardous Waste Management Standards for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Facilities, o administered by EPA, 40 CFR 260 et seq. Occupation Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 651. o Workplace Exposure Limits, administered by Occupational Health a o Administration. 29 CFR 1900 et seq. S TATE California Hazardous Waste Control Act. California Health and Safety Code, Div o Chapter 6.5. P3-56 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST California Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. California Code of Regulations, Title o 22. Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health. California Occupational Safety and Health Act, California Labor Code sections 6300 et seq. o R EGIONAL The San Mateo Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) largel permitting or remediation agency through various memoranda of un state, regional agencies,and local government. Often the Regional Water Quality Control (RWQCB) and/or the Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD) take a lead or partnership in site remediation with the SMCDEH. Chapter 1, Legislative Framework identifies the procedures to remediate hazardous materials, soils, water or releases that are levied by federal, state and local authorities. SSF OUTH AN RANCISCO The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) requires businesses using or transporting hazardous substances to provide a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (H and approval. SSFFD reviews development and entitlement applications, levies code requirements for fire prevention and safety,and conducts periodic inspections of business activities. Fire Marshal, Luis Da Silva reviewed the Project plans and provided the follow Project Approval (June 22, 2015 memorandum to Ms. Rozalynne Thompson, Associate Planner). 1.Install fire sprinkler system per National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 13D/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit for overh 2.Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per Cal 1003.3. 3.Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. 4.Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell. 5.Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building. 6.All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordancewith SSF Municipal Code section 15.24.010. 7.The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 2000 gpm at for duration of 2 hours. 8.Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet betwee P3-57 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 9.Provide location of new and existing fire hydrants. 10.This new residential construction will be assessed a recently ad Impact Fee. The amounts for low density are $385.50 per unit for the Police Department and $899.50 per unit for the Fire Department. 11.All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughou compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code. 12.Provide a minimum space of 20 feet to the rear of the property t The 20 foot clear space (vegetation/fire break) shall be measured from the rear elevation of the residence including the deck and stairway (i.e., all buil residence). The 20 foot vegetation/fire break may include fire r-invasive plantings that reach a maximum of one foot in height at maturity. Trees may be planted 25 feet from the rear elevation of the structure and beyond but break. Irrigation in the vegetation/fire break is preferred to a this area from fire. The Fire Marshal did not identify staffing and service impacts with respect to site development. SSFGP OUTH AN RANCISCO ENERAL LAN The South San Francisco General Plan contains many maps and figures identifying areas with special risks. One such figure is Figure 8-4 Fire Hazard Management Units identifying High Priority Fire Management Zones (SSF GP, 1999, p. 265). The Project site is not identified as being within a High Priority Fire Management Zone; however it is adjacent to one. I MPACTS a) and b) Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i a significant hazard to the public or the environment through th disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or th environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident co of hazardous materials into the environment. Operational Impacts The Project is considered a sensitive receptor. The Project would not handle large amounts hazardous materials as a course of everyday activities such as traveling to and from the site in vehicles (gasoline or electrically powered) or using lawnmowers for landscaping. Project operational impacts with respect to a release of hazardous substances or materials would be less than significant. P3-58 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Construction Construction related impacts involve the use of gasoline and diesel powered equipment. A hazard risk assessment was conducted and fully vetted in Chapter 3, Section 3,Air Quality, above (see Air Quality,Tables 3 and 4). Construction activities would entail the use of diesel equipment that generates emissions of DPM, which the CARB has categorized as a human carcinogen. As noted in Chapter 3, Section 3,Air Quality typically, health risks are estimated based on a lifetime exposure period of 70 years. Because exhaust emissions activities of the Project would be very low and short-term in nature (approximately 32 to 44 weeks depending on the contractors work schedule, it is anticipated that exposure to construction-related DPM would not result in an elevated health risk.The Project is required by law to implement the conditions of approval identified in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework and poses a less than significant impact to the enviro residing therein during construction. c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous mat within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if i included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Gosection 65962.5 (Cortese List). CSS Environmental Engineering reviewed the location of the Proje hazardous sources that affect the area and the Project site. The closest source is approximately ¾ mile downstream and southeast of the Project (Aaron N. Stessman, PE, Principal Engineer, CSS Environmental Services, Inc. November 5, 2015). Mr. Stessman opines that the potential presence of hazardous material that could affect the site is very remote. Additionally tProject site is not listed on a Cortese List. The Project site is within a ¼ mile of a school. The Project isnot a source of hazardous materials or the handling thereof. The Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not b a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in aard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vi would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working i P3-59 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST San Francisco International Airport is approximately 2.5miles southeastof the site. The Project site is not within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) and ALUC Plan Area jurisdiction. The Project is not within 2 miles of a private airstrip. There would be no impact associated with the location ofairports and airstrips. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in The Project would have no impact on the implementation of any ad response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injurr death involving wildland fires. The Setting Section,above, lists the 12 conditions of Project approval identified by Fire Marshal Da Silva. The Project site is not identified as being within a High Priority Fire Management Zone (SSF GP, 1999, p. 265). The Project is however adjacent to a High Priority Fire Management Zone. The Project is required by law to implement the 12 conditions of Marshal Da Silva. The measures include a 20 foot irrigated fire buffer, fire hydra an alarm and smoke detectors, emergency communications, fire extinguisher, and fire sprinklers in the buildings; all designed to reduce the likelihood of and suppress. Project impacts relating to fire protection would be less than significant with implementation of the conditions of approval required by law. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Finding: The Project is a sensitive receptor and not a source of hazardous materials. The Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools within a quarter of a mile or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cor. The operational impact of the Project with regard to the use of hazardous materials would be less than significant and similar to other residential uses in the neighborhood. The Project as proposed would have a less than significant impact with respect to the release of haza construction. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any ad plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project is not within 2 miles of an airport or air strip and would have no impact on such use. Project impacts relating to fire protection would b than significant with implementation of the conditions of approv P3-60 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.9HWQ YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies X or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard X area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area X structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant X risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X P3-61 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST S ETTING Colma Creek, the Citys main natural drainage system, is a peren about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly d City. The Colma Creek watershed is one ofthe three largest in the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west b Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge a northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridge where it drains into San Francisco Bay. Flood hazard areas identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are identified as a Special Flood Haza defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event ha-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The one-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, Zone AO, Zone AH, Zones A1-A30, Zone AE, Zone A99, Zone AR, Zone AR/AE, Zone AR/AO, Zone AR/A1-A30, Zone AR/A, Zone V, Zone VE,and Zones V1-V30. Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded) are also shown on the FIRM, an limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevatio 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded). Areas subject to inundation by the one-percent-annual-chance flood event are generally determined using approximate methodologies. Because detailed hydraulic analyses have performed, no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or flood depths are s insurance purchase requirements and floodplain management standa The Project site is located in Zone X (unshaded); an area of minimal flooding. RF EGULATORY RAMEWORK F EDERAL National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Disc: As identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.5, the City of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Warge permit. STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering c Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Man Low Impact Development (LID) measures for new developmentand construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City approval. The City requires the implementation of BMPs and LID measures to water quality in storm runoff from the Project site. In brief, the measures presented in the BMP P3-62 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid was subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides direction for sedimentation,as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure th of the measures. The City also requires an agreement with the Applicantthat ensures the permanent and on-going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the Applicant and/or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay Area Storm Water Association (BASMAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection (available from BASMAA)for a comprehensivelisting of required measures. Typical storm water quality protection measures are identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.4 of this document. The Citys requirements are in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations that are designed to mitigate potential hydrological and stormwater impacts associated with project construction and on-going operational activities. S TATE State Water Quality Control Boards General Permitting Requirements: As identified above and in Chapter 1, Section 1.5.5, the City of South San Francisco requires thorough conditions of project approval, project compliance with the Stat general permitting requirements which require the Applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) an approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Th Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP Applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the Ci Francisco, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, pr and/or grading permits. The conditions of approval identified in Chapter 1,Section 1.5.5 apply to the Project as a matter of law. These measures are required in order to reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. SSF OUTH AN RANCISCO Chapter 1, Sections 1.4 and 1.5 outline the Citys standard review process and conditions of project approval. Rob Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator,reviewed the Project and identified the following conditions of approval (mem to Planning Division, July 13, 2015). The following items must be included in the plans or are require and/or Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the 1.Submit an erosion and sediment control plan. 2.Downspouts must discharge to landscaping and cannot be directly water system. P3-63 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST I MPACTS a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requi Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste di The Project as a matter of law is required to provide a SWPPP for approval by the City. The City requires the implementation of LIDs and BMPs for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through st project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the PuRob Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector for the City of South San Francisco reviewed the proposed plans and identified the conditions of approval (listed in the Setting Section, above). These measures are required by the City in compliance authority and are designed to reduce potential water quality impacts to less t The Project would present no impact with respect to violation of or waste discharge standards as the result of the Citys permitt which are in compliance with regional, state and federal laws designed including stormwater impacts both on individual projects and as well as cumulative impacts. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with g there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of cal groundwater table level. The Project would not draw down groundwater but be connected to water supply provided by California Water Service. The Project would leave 78 percent of the site unpaved and porous allowing groundwater recharge. The Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to groundwater depletion. The Project would continue to receive its water supply from existing local infrastructure, not groundwater. Current conditions include some filtration and sheet flow off the site into the street and storm drain. The Project w significant impact with respect to groundwater recharge by leaving 78 percent of the site in porous conditions and would improve collection and filtration conditions as required by conditions of Project approval. c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effect Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. P3-64 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The Project is required to comply with current NPDES and SWPPP measu sections a and b, above,and Section 3.7, Geology and Soils. The regulations mandate the Project to treat all stormwater runoff from the entire Project o-site prior to discharging into the storm drain. Therewould be a less than significant impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site as a result of the NPDES and SWPPP measures required by the City. d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Flooding Effects Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flo- or off-site. The Project, as noted in sections b and c above, would likely improve the existing drainage pattern of the site because the Project is required by law to implement NPDES and SWPPP measures (outlined in detail in the Setting Section above and Chapter 1, Legislative Framework) and conditions of approval noted in the Setting Section, above. Under current conditions, it is reasonable to assume that stormwater percolates on site and sheet flows across the site in a westerly direction (due to the gradient), into the street and the Citys storm drain system. The Project is required to comply with conditions of approval. Condition of Approval #2, noted above, requires that downspouts must discharge to landsca plumbed to the storm water system (Rob Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector). The Project would result in a less than significant impact related to an increased rate or amount of surface runoff with implementation of the conditions of approval required by law. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity/Increase Polluted R Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacit water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources The Project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the Project. The SWPPP as noted in the Chapter 1, Section 5, the Setting Section and in sections a, b, c and d above, is designed to reduce stormwater impacts to less than significant. Water quality measures are required to be included in the buildi, all contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Qua Compliance Inspector conducts routine site inspections to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations and/or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project would as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from e P3-65 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Implementation of the measures required as a matter of law would reduce runoff impacts to less than significant. f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it degrade water quality. The Project would result a less than significant impact on water quality from point source water pollution with implementation of the measures required by law. g  i) Flood Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 100-year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were people or structures to flooding hazards. The Project site is located in a Flood Zone X (unshaded); an area of minimal flooding. The Citys Building Official is the Flood Administrator who is respo construction complies with FEMA regulations. The site is not within a 100-year flood zone. The Project would result in no impact with respect to flooding. j) Tsunami Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow. The Project site is located approximately 8,000 feet fromSan Francisco Baywith Sign Hill between the site and the Bay. An earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay. The Citys general plan estimates that potential wave run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a 500-year tsunami (p 250, SSF GP, 1999). The Project site is 348 feet above msl,would be outside the runup zone subject to inundation by a 500-year tsunami, and would be outside the any potential tsunami hazard zone. The Projectis not within an inundation zone;therefore,the impact of potential inundation by tsunami, seiche, or mudflow isconsidered to be less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Finding:The Citys standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal,and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of Project constThe Project site is 348 feet above msl, would be outside the runup z 500-year tsunami and would be outside the any potential tsunami hazard zone. The site is within Flood Zone X and not subject to an 100-year flood event. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified. The Project would not result in an impact or contributeto a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. P3-66 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.10LUP AND SE AND LANNING PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than Significant Significant Significant No ImpactwithImpactImpact Would the Project:Mitigation a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, X policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? S ETTING The Project site is located in the northern portion of the City of South San Francisco, in an area known as the Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning sub-area (SSF GP, 1999, p. 118). The Project site is in the western portion of the planning area in a single-family neighborhood known as Sterling Terrace. The Project site is one of the very few remaining vacant lots in the Ster Terrace neighborhood. The Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning sub-area spans the northern slope of Sign Hill to the City boundaries between the Town of Colma, the City of Brisbane, and San Bruno Mountain County Park to the north; Bayshore Boulevard to the South; and Airport, Sister Cities and Hillside Boulevards are within the plsub-area. The planning sub-area is largely residential. Older residential development, circa 1940-1950, and single family development, is located south of Sister Cities and Hillside Boul- family detached, duplex and condominium developments associated with Terrabay Phases I and II are north of Sister Cities and Hillside Boulevards. RF EGULATORY RAMEWORK General Plan Designation The Project site is designated Low Density Residential (RL) permitting up to 8 units per acre. th The site is in within the Sterling Terrace neighborhood, constructed in the mid-20 century consisting of single-family detached residences. The terminus of Larch Avenue (to the southwest) abuts multi-family designated and developed properties. P3-67 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Zoning Classification The Project site is zoned Low Density Residential, allowing a maximum of eight units per acre (RL-8). I MPACTS a and b) Division of an Established Communityand Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zon i ng Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it physically divide an established community and/or the Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with anyapplicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adoptvoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project conforms to the general plan and zoning classifications f as shown in Chapter 2, Project Description. The lot was created in the 1950s and intended for a single- family residence. The Applicant proposes environmental mitigations as part of the Proj Chapter 2, Project Description and Appendix A). This chapter, Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist, evaluates potential impacts associated with 17 environmental reslative impacts and finds Project related impacts to be less than significant with implementation of the measures required by law and proposed by the Applicant. The Project would have no impact on dividing an established commu continue to be consistent with Citys General Plan and zoning. The Project would conform to all applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and proposes environmental mitigations as part of the Projectand, therefore, would have no impact. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or n plan. There is no conservation or natural community conservation plans that govern the Project site (or area) as identified in Section 3.5, Biological Resources. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. Land Use Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is planned for a single-family use and the Project is consistent with the planned uses. There are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that area. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. P3-68 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.11MR INERAL ESOURCES Less Than PotentiallyLess Than Significant Significant Significant No with Would the Project: Mitigation Impact Impact Impact a)Result in the loss of availability of a known X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? S ETTING The Project is located in an area developed with residential lanThe site is vacant, has never been developed, and was partially graded in the 1950s. There are no areas of mineral resources in the City as documented by the South San Francisco General Plan and Background Report(1999). I MPACTS a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it in the loss of availabilityof a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general pla other land use plan. No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the Project site. The Project site has not been delineated as a site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important reso Minerals Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contrib mineral resources. P3-69 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.12N OISE PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than Significant Significant Significant No ImpactwithImpactImpact Would the Project: Mitigation X a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? X e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? X f)For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? S ETTING The Project site is located in a residential neighborhood north major source of noise in the Project vicinity is traffic on Hillch is located more than 500 feet north of the Project site. Another potential aircraft noise from the San Francisco International Airport. The Project could result in a temporary increase in noise levelsactivities. In general, residences are one of the quietest land uses (other tha), and noise from one residence would be considered compatible with the surrounding residences. By definition, residential land uses are considered a sensitive receptor (see discussion below, under Sensitive Receptors) Therefore, noise impacts generated by the residential use are insignificant and will notbe further assessed. Temporary construction-related noise impacts will be fully vetted. P3-70 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The applicantproposes the following noise reduction measures as part of the Project(see Chapter 2, Project Description and Appendix A): 1.Secure an exception permit for noise levels that could temporari property line in order to comply with the Citys Noise Ordinance. 2.Construct a temporary noise barrier between the Project and 859 the site on the east (see Noise Figure 1, below). The noise barrier will remain in place for the duration of construction. The barrier will be constructed on the eastern property line of the Project site, and be long and tall enough to block the line activities and the adjacent sensitive receptor. Temporary barriers will be constructed from materials such as plywood lined with noise-absorbing material, commercial panels lined with sound absorbing material, or noise blankets or curtains, and will have a Sound 23 Transmission Class (STC)rating of STC 30 or greater.Examples of noise control blankets and sound curtains as well as installation of these features can be viewed on the following website: http://www.allnoisecontrol.com/outdoor-noise-control-blankets.cfm. 3.Enclosures for stationary equipment and movable barriers will be the sensitive receptors to the north and west of the Project site to the extent feasible. The barriers will be located as close as possible to the noise s Portable panels and noise curtains are examples of movable temporary noise barrier systems that might be feasible on the hillsides (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Construction Noise Handbook, August 2006a).Enclosures around stationary equipment can provide a 10 to 20 dB sound reduction and barriers provide a 5 to 20 dB sound reduction in noise levels (California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), 1998. Technical Noise Supplement, October, 1998 (NCHRP) 1999). 4.Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according 5.Provide advance notification to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction schedule including the various types of activities that would be occurrin the construction period. 6.Designate a member of the construction team as an on-site construction noisecontactwho will act as aNeighborhood Liaison for the duration of the Project. TheNeighborhood Liaison will respond to noise issues and implement solutions, if feasible and necessary, in addition those identified above. For example, a neighbor may have a special event that requires a quiet environment for a few hours or a day, such as a,or 23 Sound Transmission Class (STC) is a widely used rating for how well a building parti sound. STC ratings are used to rate interior partitions, ceiling configurations. P3-71 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST memorial service, and the construction schedule may be able to a activities for afew hours. 7.Post signs around the Project site to inform persons of the construction hours and name and phone number of the person or persons to notify in the problem (theNeighborhood Liaison). NF1 OISE IGURE LTSB OCATION OF EMPORARY OUND ARRIER N D OISE EFINED Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of envir to account for the difference in response of people to daytime a nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becom most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to nighttime n To quantify the noise over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise equivalent Level (CNEL) criteria areused. Both noise descriptors include a 10 decibel (dB) penalty (addition to the actual measured level(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and a five dB penalty during evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) for the CNEL to account for peoples sensitivity during these hours. Noise is measured and quantified with an A-weighted filter which closely approximates the way the human ear hears sound; a de- P3-72 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST emphasis of low-frequency and high-frequency sound. The resulting measurement is quantified as an A-weighted decibel or dBA.All references to decibels (dB) in this report will be A- weighted unless noted otherwise. Noise attenuates (reduces) the further it travels from the source. Sta noise, including construction equipment, attenuate (lessen) at a of distance from the source, depending on ground absorption. Sofes attenuate at 7.5 dB per doubling because they have an absorptive ground surface such as bushes and trees. Hard sites have reflective surfaces (e.g., par therefore have less attenuation (6.0 dB per doubling). Noise from a street with moving vehicles (known as a line source), would typically attenuate at a lowerapproximately 3 to 4.5 dB each time the distance doubles from the source, which also depen. The shell of a building (sometimes referred to as the envelope) attenuates noise more depending on the type construction, number and type of doors and insulation contained therein. Physical barriers located between a noise source and the noise receptor, such as berms or sound walls, will increase the attenu attenuation that occurs by distance alone. Projects can result in an increase in noise (unwanted sound) fro/or operational activities. Construction istypically short-term in nature depending upon the construction schedule. Construction impacts can be annoying, but are relatively short-term and restricted to certain times of the day while operational impact run with the life of the Project and largely result from increased traffic, and/or land use activities that are conducted external to a buil RF EGULATORY RAMEWORK OSHA(OSHA) CCUPATIONAL AFETY AND EALTH DMINISTRATION Federal codes, primarily the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), govern worker exposure to noise levels. These regulations would be app Project and are designed to limit worker exposure to noise level over an 8-hour period (Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Sectio OSHApermissible noise exposure limits for occupational noise are shown in Noise Table 1. When employees are subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Noise Table 1, feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized, or per provided and used to reduce sound levels within the levels of th P3-73 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST NT1 OISE ABLE PNE ERMISSIBLE OISE XPOSURES Duration Per Day (Hours) Sound Level (dB, slow response) 16 85 8 90 6 92 495 3 97 2 100 1 & 1/2102 1 105 1/2110 1/4 or less115 Source: Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Section 191-16A C S TATE OF ALIFORNIA The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitt The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and flo-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation n exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise leve habitable room with all doors and windows closed. The code requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than). Title 24 dn requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division. SSFGP OUTH AN RANCISCO ENERAL LAN The South San Francisco Noise Element (SSF GP, 1999, pp. 275288) contains land use criteria for noise as it pertains to various land uses. These criteria dene the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditional upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. For residen than sixty-five dBA CNEL are acceptable and noise levels of 65 to 70 dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable. (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas, SSF GP, 1999, p. 280). SSFNO OUTH AN RANCISCO OISE RDINANCE The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise levels through its Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, South San Francisco Municipal Code). The Noise Ordinance contains special provisions for construction activities (Section 8.32.050(d).). Construction activities authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and o P3-74 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or at such other the permit, as long as they meet at least one of the following noise limitation (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exc distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailerty, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distanc-five feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of th ninety dB. According to Section 8.32.060 of the Noise Ordinance, if the applicant can show t manager, or the managers designee, that a diligent investigatio techniques indicates that immediate compliance with the requiremould be impractical or unreasonable, a permit to allow exception from th chapter may be issued, with appropriate conditions to minimize t such exceptions. Any such permit shall be of as short duration as possible, but in no case for longer than six months. These permits are renewable upon a showi be conditioned by a schedule for compliance and details of compl cases. R S ENSITIVE ECEPTORS Residential, schools, child care facilities, and convalescent facilities are typically considered noise sensitive land uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are single-family homes adjacent to the Project site on the east (the closest of which is approximately five feet from the Project site eastern boundary) and across Larch Avenue to the no from the Project site), as well apartment homes located 50 feet Christian Academy is located 300 feet northwest of the Project site. Aesthetic Figures 1, 2, and 3 in Section 3.1 illustrate the proximity of the residential uses. I MPACTS a  d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Exces Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Lev Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in exces South San Francisco General Plan or the City Noise Ordinance. Construction noise would have a significant environmental impact if it occurs outside the hours specified in the Noise Ordi or generates noise levels greater than those specified in the No P3-75 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST PNIPR OTENTIAL OISE MPACTS ON ROJECT ESIDENCE According to the South San Francisco General Plan, the site is located outside of the 60 dB noise contour for roadway noise (Figure 9-2 Projected Rail and Road Noise,SSF GP, 1999,p.283)and located outside of the 65 dB contour for airport noise (Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Area,SSF GP, 1999, p.279). The airports contours were updated in 2012, and the Project is outside of the 65 dB contour (Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Enviro San Francisco International Airport, Ricondo Associates, 2012). Exterior noise levels at the Project site are less than 65 dB CNEL, and would comply with the land us uses contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Typical residential construction will provide an exterior-to interior noise level reduction of no less than 25 dB provided that exterior windows and doors are clo Consultants, PFE/Walerga Mixed-Use Development, Environmental Noise Assessment, 2005. Burn, Melissa. WYLE Laboratories. WYLE Research Report WR 94-23. Raleigh-Durham International Airport New Construction Acoustical Design Guide. 1994). Interior noise levels would be less than 45 dB and would comply with the California Building Code. Noise levels at the future residence would comply with the standards of the California Building Code and South San Francisco General Plan. Residents of the home would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of City standards, and impacts to residen significant. PC ROJECT ONSTRUCTION Project construction would occur during a period of approximately 32 to 44 weeks. Construction activities would occur during the construction hours contained in the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance requires that cononly take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., o hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays be and 6:00 p.m. Project construction would result in a temporary, short-term increase of noise levels in the Project vicinity. Construction activities would include gradingof the site, drilling of piers, and construction of the residence. As shown in Noise Table 2, maximum applicable construction 24 equipment noise levels can range from 76 to 85 dB at 50 feet. Pile driver noise can reach 101 dB at 50 feet, but pile driving 24 analyzed herein. P3-76 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST NT2 OISE ABLE TNLFCE YPICAL OISE EVELS ROM ONSTRUCTION QUIPMENT Construction Equipment 1 Noise Level (dB, Lmax at 50 feet) Dump Truck 76 Auger Drill Rig 84 Drill Rig Truck 79 Air Compressor 78 Crane81 Concrete Mixer (Truck)79 Scraper84 Dozer 82 Paver77 Generator 81 Rock Drill 81 Excavator81 Pile Driver101 Front End Loader 79 Grader 85 Backhoe 78 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Lmax is the instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time. 1 The highest noise levels during construction would occur during phase would include grading of the site as well as drilling and installation of the piers foe residence. Preparation of the site would last for a duration of five days, and grading of the site would occur for approximately 30 days. Graders may be used durin can result in a maximum noise level of 85 dB at 50 feet, and drills produce noise levels of 79-84 dB at 50 feet (Roadway Construction Noise Model Users Guide, FHWA, 2006b). Maximum noise levels that could occur at the nearby sensitive rection are shown in Noise Table 3, below. Noise levels at each receptor were calculated using the noise level of the loudest piece of applicable equipment (grader), when it would be operated at its closest point to each receptor.If excavators are used instead of graders for grading of the Project site, maximum noise levels would be 4 dB less than these estimates. Noise levels would be less than these estimates most of the time, since grading would only occur for a d 30 days, and other equipment used for Project construction would, noise during grading would fluctuate throughout the day because equipm one location for an extended period of time. As shown in Noise Table 3, the maximum noise levels inside the nearby residences would be well below the OSHAse exposure limits for hearing conservation shown in Noise Table 1. Residents of nearby homes would not be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 85 dB for a 16 hour c identified as the maximum threshold shown in Noise Table 1. P3-77 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST NT3 OISE ABLE MCNLANSR AXIMUM ONSTRUCTION OISE EVELS T EARBY ENSITIVE ECEPTORS 1 Sensitive ReceptorExterior Noise Level Interior Noise (dB, Lmax) Level (dB, Lmax) Residence adjacent to the Project site (5 feet 9974 east of the Project boundary, 10 feet from construction) Apartment Homes (50feet west of the Project 8560 boundary) Residences across Larch Avenue (70 feet north 8257 of the Project boundary) Hillside Christian Academy (300 feet 6944 2 2 northwest of the Project boundary) Note: Noise levels were predicted using a reference noise level of 85 dB at per doubling of distance Typical residential construction will provide an exterior-to interior noise level reduction of no less than 25 dB 1 provided that exterior windows and doors are closed (Bollard, 2005, Burn, Maximum noise levels at the school would be at least 3 to 5 dB l 2 attenuation provided by buildings between the Project site and tool (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FHWA Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook, February 2000). Construction equipment operated in close proximity to the proper the adjacent residential property to the east. In addition, some of the equipment used for construction could exceed 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet. As sho Noise Table 4, equipment producing the highest noise levels (graders, scrapers, maximum noise levels of 90 to 91 dB at a distance of 25 feet. NT4 OISE ABLE CENL25F ONSTRUCTION QUIPMENT OISE EVELS AT EET Equipment Noise Level (dB, Lmax at 25 feet) Auger Drill Rig 90 Grader 91 Scraper 90 Note: Noise levels were predicted using an attenuation rate of 6.0dB per doubling of distance. The hours of construction would comply with the South San Franci the absence of the measures proposed by the Applicant, noise levels noise limits contained in the Noise Ordinance. In addition, temporary construction could result in short-term noise increases in ambient noise levels that could be annoy receptors. Implementation of the measures the Applicant proposes (identified in the Noise Setting Section and Chapter 2) would ensure compliance with the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance and reduce construction nois feasible. The implementation of measures the Applicant proposes would ensure that the Project complies with the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance and would reduce temporary short-term noise impacts at sensitive receptors in the Project vicinit construction noise would be a less-than-significant impact with implementation of the measures the Applicant proposes as part of the Project. P3-78 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST TCV EMPORARY ONSTRUCTION IBRATION Construction operations have the potential to result in varying vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used ground vibration levels associated with various types of constructio in Noise Table 5. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads t ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. T of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds a moderate levels, and slight damage to nearby structures at the h At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely results i structures, a peak particle velocity (ppv) threshold of 0.5 inch avoid structural damage. The Federal Transit Administration recommends a threshold of 0 for residential and commercial structures, 0.25 ppv for historic and 0.2 ppv for non-engineered timber and masonry building (Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006). NT5 OISE ABLE RVSLCE EPRESENTATIVE IBRATION OURCE EVELS FOR ONSTRUCTION QUIPMENT EquipmentPeak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec) upper range 1.518 Pile Driver (impact) Typical 0.644 upper range 0.734 Pile Driver (sonic) Typical 0.170 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Note: Equipment shown in bold could be used during construction of the Project. The Projectwould not involve the use of any equipment or processes that wou potentially significant levels of ground vibration (i.e., would not use pile drivers that could be above 0.5 ppv). Ground vibration generated by construction operations would be primarily associated with on-site trucks, bulldozers, and drilling of piers. As shown in Noise Table 5, this equipmentwould result in vibration levels of less than 0.1 inch per secon Construction equipment operated as close as 10 feet from the nearby vibration level of 0.35 ppv. The predicted vibration levels at the nearest structure would no anticipated to exceed the 0.5 ppv threshold for residential structures. The temporary construction vibration associated with on-site equipment would not be anticipated to P3-79 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST expose sensitive receptors to or generate excessive groundborne groundborne vibration levels, and would result in a less-than-significant impact. e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if i within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not b a public airport or publicuse airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were t people residing or working in the Project area to excessive nois The site is not within an aircraft insulation area as shown on Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program(SSF GP, 1999, p. 279). The contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) aircraft noise contour. The Project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip, and is not located within the 65 dB SFO noise Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. Noise Finding: The implementation of measures the Applicant proposes would ensu Project complies with the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance and would reduce temporary short-term noise impacts at sensitive receptors in the Project vicinit noise would be a less-than-significant impact with implementation of the measures the Applicant proposes as part of the Project. The temporary construction vibration associated with on-site equipment would not be anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to or generate excessi groundborne vibration levels, and would result in a less-than-significant impact. The Project is not located within two miles of a private airstri dB SFO noise contour. Therefore, the Project would result in a l-than-significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. 3.13PH OPULATION AND OUSING Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: X a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? P3-80 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST S ETTING The site has never been developed and is part of a single-family detached neighborhood known as Sterling Terrace. The neighborhood was constructed in the 1950-1960s. The Project would be the construction of one single-family detached residence in a subdivision planned and zoned for such development. Typically, the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone with utilities and infrastructure in place is categorically exempt from the CEQA re CEQA Guidelines section 15303, Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small S are exceptions to exemptions as stated in CEQAGuidelines section 15300.2, subsection (a). Subsection (a) clearly states Class 3 exemptions are qualified b would be located. The subsection further notes a project that in in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be signifi Therefore, if a project might be located in a biological habitat slopes, or on properties known to have environmental contaminatirials), the exception to the exemption noted above requires the lead agency which may be satisfied by utilizing the sample forms provided in CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, if a project might be located in a biological habitat, or on steep or potentially unstable slopes, or on properties known to have environmental contaminati, the exception to the exemption, noted above, requires the lead agency to conduct an initial study, which may be satisfied by utilizing the sample forms provided in Appendices G and H of the CEQA Guidelines. The potential biological issues vetted in Section 3.4, Biology and geotechnical constraints vetted in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils were the catalyst for the preparation of this initial study. The addition of one single-family residence planned since the 1950s poses no impact on population and housing. I MPACTS a) Population Growth Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmentalimpact if it were to induce either directly of indirectly substantial population grow The Project site has been planned for a single-family residence since the neighborhoods development in the 1950s. The Project is a residence and not a source of employment, albeit it is likely that residents of the household would be employed. The Project would not add to the growth assumptions contained in the Citys General Plan and the impact on population growth would be less than significant. P3-81 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing u project site. There are no residential units on the Project site. The Project would add a residential unit in a neighborhood with aging residential stock. The Project would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people. Population and Housing Finding: The Project site has been planned for a residential use since the 1950s. The Project site is vacant and would add one housing unit and not displace housing units or residents. 3.14PS UBLIC ERVICES Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: X i) Fire protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? S ETTING As noted above in the Population and Housing section, the site has never been developed and is part of a single-family detached neighborhood known as Sterling Terrace. The neighborhood was constructed in the 1950s. The Project would be the construction of one single-family detached residence in a subdivision planned and zoned for such d P3-82 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST I MPACTS a) Public Services Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the prov governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause sts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times o for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recre government facilities. The Project is not anticipated to increase the City of South San Franciscos population as identified as described above, in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning and in Section 3.13, Population and Housing. School impact fees are required for new construction and paid fo at the time of building permit issuance. South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments commented on the standard review process identified in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework, Sections 4 and 5. Fire Marshal, Luis Da Silva reviewed the Project plans and provided 12 Conditions of Project Approval (June 22, 2015 memorandum to Ms. Rozalynne Thompson, Associate Planner), identified in Chapter 3 Section 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Fire Marshal did not identify staffing and service impacts with respect to the site development. The Project site is not identified as being within a High Priority Fire Management Zone on Figure 8-4 Fire Hazard Management Units (SSF GP, 1999, p. 265). Project impacts relating to fire protection would be less than significant with implementation of the conditions of approval required by law. Police Sergeant Plank reviewed the Project plans. All constructi Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48  Minimum Security Standards (July 23, 2015 memorandum to Ms. Rozalynne Thompson, Associate Planner). Sergea staffing and service impacts with respect to the site development. Neither department identified staffing or service issues associated with development of thsite. School fees are collected at the time of building permit issuanc one single-family residence, 3.21 persons per household (PPHH), (SSFMC Chapter 19.24) is de minimus. Recreation and park impacts are discussed in the following section. Any increased demand for public services as a result of the Project would not new facilities and would be considered less than significant. Public Services Finding: The Project was reviewed by Police and Fire Department representatives and staffing or facility needs were not identified as insufficieevelopment of the Project site would not increase the demand for public servic. P3-83 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.15R ECREATION PotentiallyLess ThanLess Than Significant Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation Would the Project: X a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? S ETTING As noted above in Section 3.13, Population and Housing and Section 3.14, Public Services, the site has never been developed and is part of a single-family detached neighborhood known as Sterling Terrace. The neighborhood was constructed in the 195s-1960s. The Project would be the construction of one single-family detached residence in a subdivision planned and zoned for such development. I MPACTS a) and b) Recreation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment. The Project area is served by a variety of open space and recreaThe Hillside and Martin Schools provide 11 acres of sports and play areas (SSF GP, 1999. p. 177). The Hillside School is approximately 800 feet northwest and Martin School is approximately 4,000 feet southeast of the Project. The Terrabay Recreation Center, Hillside Recreation Center, the Preservation Parcel associated with Terrabay Phase III now dedic Mountain County Park, the history trail on the Terrabay Phase III site, the shared use performing arts facility located in the South Tower of Terrabay Sister Cities Boulevard, and a pocket park on Linden Avenue are City and are located within the Terrabay/Paradise Valley neighbo The Project would be one single-family residence with an estimated household of 3.21 people. The Project would not be a major employer as identified in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, above. The Project, a single-family residence estimated to add 3.21 people to the area would not impact the provision of parks, recreational aThe project does not require the expansion or provision of recreatiohich might P3-84 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST have an adverse effect on the environment. The Projectsimpact on recreational facilities would be less than significant. Parks and Recreation Finding:The Project, the addition of one single-family residence, th planned for since the mid-20centurywould not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. 3.16 TT RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Would the Project: Mitigation X a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into accounts all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relative components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? X b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management program including but not limited to the level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? S ETTING As noted throughout this document, the Project site is located at 901 Larch Avenue is located at the terminus of Lincoln Street where it intersects Larch Avenue. approximate 600 foot north/south trending neighborhood street co Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard provides access to both the western and e City. To the east, Hillside Boulevard connects to and veers south of Sister Citie Sister Cities Boulevard in conjunction with Airport and Oyster Pvardsform a leg of P3-85 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST the Oyster Point Flyover. The Oyster Point Flyover provides access to north and southbound U.S. Highway 101, as well as the East of 101 Area. Hillside Boulevard provides access to the western and central poa series oflocal,connector,and arterialstreets. Hillside Boulevard intersects Chestnut Avenue. Chestnut Avenue turns into Westborough Boulevard when it crosses Westborough Boulevard provides access to Interstate 280, Skyline Boulevard, and the City of Pacifica. Hillside Boulevard also forms the boundary between the San Francisco,approximately 1,000 feet north of the Project site (Google Earth, 2015). Sidewalks are present on both sides of Larch Avenue. Larch Avenue has a 60 foot right-of-way. Roadways in the Project area are not identified as needing major Figure 4-2 Major Street Improvement s, SSF GP, 1999, p. 149). Figure 4-1 Street Classifications identifies Larch Avenue and Lincoln Street as Other Streets (SSF GP, 1999, p. 141). The classification system includes four types of streets dep amount the street is traveled and its design. The Major Arteria and includes Hillside and Chestnut Boulevards in the Project area; Grand Avenue south of the Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning sub-area is an example of a Minor Arterial; Collector Streets include the south branching portion of Hillside Boulevard and School Street in the eastern portion of the Paradise Valley/Terrabay planning sub-area; and Other Streets, being the least traveled, typically appearing in residential neighborhoods, include Hemlock Avenue and Kearney and Jefferson Streets in the planning sub-area. I MPACTS a and b)Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load, Street System Capacity and Complete Streets (discussed in , below) Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The Project would add approximately nine average daily trips to the neighborhood streets (Trip th Generation Manual-9Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012). The addition of nine trips is an insignificant amount. Mr. Sam Bautista, City Enginecongestion issues in the Project area and no improvements are planned (Nove The addition of nineaverage daily trips per day would result in no impact in the Project area. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic leocation that results in substantial safety risks. P3-86 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The Project is not within an airport zone. The Project is approximately2.5 miles northwest of San Francisco International Airport, as identified in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,above. The Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses Significance Criteria:The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increa hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic or result in safety impacts to pedestrians or bicyclists due to a circulation pattern or inadeq increased vehicle circulation looking for parking or inadequate Larch Avenue is designed as a residential street with a 60 foot right-of -way. Intersecting streets are perpendicular to Larch Avenue, providing adequate sight distances with no blind corners. The Project proposes the required two-car off-street garage parking accessed by a driveway perpendicular to Larch Avenue. The structure will besetback 15 feet from the front property line,as required by zoning. The setback provides adequate distance and maneuver area to approach and depart the site. The streets were designed to accommodate residential land uses. The Project would not impact the streets, pose hazards associate, or pose incompatible land uses. e) Emergency Access Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. Police and Fire reviewed the Project and found no issues or concerns with respect to emergency access. The development pattern and layout in the neighborhood was designed to accommodate residential uses. The Project would pose no impacts associated with emergency access. a and f) Alternative Transportation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conf policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The Project is required to reconstruct curb and sidewalkas noted in Chapter 3.6, Geology and Soils The owner shall, at his/her expense, repair any broken sidewalk,veway approaches, curb and gutter along the entire frontage of the property, prior inspection for the new building (Sam Bautista, City Engineer, No The Project would result in no impact with respect to alternate ansportation modes or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding publ facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of s is a compatible land use with the neighborhood and will replace sidewalks, driveway P3-87 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST approaches,curbs,and guttersas required by the Citys identified conditions of approval. Transportation Finding: The Project would not impact the streets, pose hazards associate with its use, or pose incompatible land uses.Police and Fire reviewed the Project and found no issues or concerns with respect to emergency access. The develop neighborhood was designed to accommodate residential uses. The P impacts associated with emergency access. The Project would result in no impact with respect to alternate transportation modes or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the facilities. The Project is a compatible land use with the neighborhood and w driveway approaches and curb and gutter as required by the City approval. 3.17USS TILITIES AND ERVICE YSTEMS PotentiallyLess Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant No Would the Project: Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation X a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the constructionof new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Projects solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? P3-88 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST S ETTING The Project proposes one single-family residence. The Project is in a residential neighborhood developed and planned for such use. The neighborhood, Sterling th most of the housing was constructed in the mid-20 century. I MPACTS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regio Board (RWQCB). The Citys storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulatio management. As identified in Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 5 and in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMPs and LID measures and comply with SWPPP regulations. Mr. Lecel, Senior Environmental Compliance Inspector for the City, reviewed the Project, identified conditions of approval, and did not identify any extraordinary measures or significant impacts with respect to wastewater. The City is in compliance with its RWQCB permit. Therefore, the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, resulting in no impact b and e) Wastewater Treatment Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which ma inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco i Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Bel San Francisco Bay, south of the Project site. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater genera WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD), i The Project was reviewed by both the Engineering and Water Quality Control staff. No wastewater issues were identified (Sam Bautista, November 14, 20, July 13, 2015). th The Project site has been planned for a residential use since the mid-20century. The City of South San Francisco has a current wastewater allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD), is currently generating 5.6 MGD. The wastewater treatment plant has capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The Project, per P3-89 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Engineering Condition of Approval #4,will be required to install a sewer lateral and clean-out from the Project site to the street as all development is required within the City (Sam Bautista, November 14, 2015). The Project would have a less than significant imp act with respect to wastewater treatment. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it require or result in the construction of new storm water drainagon of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signi The Project would be required to connect to the stormwater facilities. As identified in the Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 5 and Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater is required to be collected on-site and conveyed to landscaping areas. The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded st (beyond the standard connection to the facility from the lot), resulting in no impact to storm water drainage facilities. b and d) Water Treatment Facilities and Supply Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effectiv requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determin supplies can meet a projects water demand. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco by the California Water Service Company (CWSC) and the Westborough County Water District (WCWD). CWSC provides water to the area east of Interstate 280 (I-280) in South San Francisco, including the Project site, and its service areas includes the City of Colma and the Broadmo portion of South San Francisco west of I-280. CWCS receives water from the City and County of SanFrancisco, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) i was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Ma (Division 6, Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610-10656). Water Code section 10910, subdivision(c)(2) and Government Code section 66473.7, subdivision (c)(1) note that it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. Between sources guaranteed by a settlement agreement and the purchase of the Los Trancos Co has a total Supply Assurance Allocation of 35.5 million gallons 25 indefinitely. The UWMP projected that the South San Francisco District population would increase from 55,024 in 2000 to 64,050 in 2020; an increase of a year. CWSC developed an Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan (ILTWSP) for CWSC, 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Francisco, 25 P3-90 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST peninsula districts in 2010. The findings of the ILTWSP recommend continuing with conservation and further evaluating desalination and water trans The population of the CWSC service area is projected to be 64,05and 70,548by 2040. South San Franciscos total population is anticipated to be approximately 69,810 in service area population projections for CWSC are approximately 8 population of South San Francisco. Therefore, in 2020, it is anticipated that the CWSC service population area will be 57,678,providing adequate water supply for existing and projected 26 development;particularly in light of the conservation efforts identified bel. The Project would be required to comply with the California Green Building Code which identifies measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building energy consumption in both the construction and operation of bui building (outlined in Chapter 1, Legislative Framework). The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to sustainability. The Project is one single family residence that for the City has planned for since the th mid-20century. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable or Project related impact. The Project would not result in a need to obtain new water alloc serve existing, Project, or the development projections contained in the South San Francisco General Plan, and result in a less than significant impact. f and g) Solid Waste Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accomlid waste disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with feder regulations related to solid waste. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) manages and disposal data for South San Francisco. Non-recyclable or non-compostable waste is disposed at Ox Mountain landfill near Half Moon Bay. The closurset for 2023. UWMP, 2006 and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San Francisco, 26 and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting October P3-91 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST CIWMB notes South San Franciscos solid waste generation is 7.76day. Solid waste projected at build-out (year 2020) is anticipated to be 276 tons per day. The Ox Mountain landfill has a maximum permitted disposal rate of 3,598 Francisco. The total projected solid waste disposal needs for South San Francisco, based upon 27 cumulative projections, is 7.7 percent of the daily permitted wa The City requires construction waste diversion as outlined in Chapter 1, Introduction as well as recycling and composting waste associated with Project operations. Construction and operation of the Project would generate a less of solid waste for the landfill that will be serving it, and operation of the Project would be in full compliance with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and result in no impact. Utilities and Service Systems Finding: The wastewater treatment plant has the capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The Project is one single-family residence th that has been planned for since the mid-20 century. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable or Project-related impact. The Project would not result in a need to obtain new water allocations to serve existing, Project, or the development projections contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and projected cumulative development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for Project ad cumulative solid waste and the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion mandate, and operations of the Project would be required to incorporated LIDs treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. Construction and operation of the Project would generate a less than significant amount of solid waste, an be in full compliance with all federal, state, and local statutes, and regulations related to solid waste. Stormwater is required to be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or u South San Franciscos existing and projected waste stream generaclude an approximate 50 percent 27 demonstrated diversion rate (South El Camino Real General Plan A Francisco, Dyatt and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Co and initial study). P3-92 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST 3.18MFS ANDATORY INDINGS OF IGNIFICANCE Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for SignificantSignificant SignificantNo Determination of Environmental Impact with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE  a) Does the Project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) X c)Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Quality of the Environment All environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultures, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, health risks, biological resources, cultural resourcesincluding important examples of the major periods of California history orgeology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, service systems transportation and traffic and utilities and are considered less than significant without additional mitigation measures. Construction and occupation of the Project would not impact the environment b) Cumulative Impacts The Project has no cumulatively considerable impacts. P3-93 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings The Project would not have environmental effects that would caustantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. SF: UMMARY OF INDINGS Aesthetics Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or sce on the site or in the area. The Project is not located within a ally designated public vista, nor would it result in the obstruction of a formally designated publ The Project is not identified as a viewpoint parcel or as one co 1999). The Project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. The Project would be built on the portion of the lot that is the other single-family structures in the neighborhood. Massing would be reduced on the second story. The second story,consisting of 733 square feet, would be 40 percent smaller than the ground floor, consisting of 1,224 square feet. The Project would provide a transition from the mass of the back-family structure to the south and the single-family structures within the subdivision. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect , or light and glare associated with the Project. Agriculture and Timber Resources Finding: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations as none exist on the site. The P agricultural resources individually or cumulatively and does notFarmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) nor land imson Act Contract. The site is not zoned for timberland production or in use as such, and would not cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in the Public Resources Code (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). Air Quality Finding: Project impacts that would be associated with construction-related fugitive dust and combustion exhaust emissions would be less thawith implementation of the Citys standard Air Quality Conditions of Approval. The Project traffic would not cause the daily traffic volumes to based on the circulation infrastructure and the projected traffigle-family house typically generates nine vehicle trips per day. Therefore, impac long-term operational CO exhaust emissions would be less than signifi Odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the Pect would be less than significant. There would be a less-than-significant impact associated with, conflicting with, or obstruc implementation of the applicable air quality plan. P3-94 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST The health risk and hazard impacts to sensitive receptors from Pnstruction would be less than significant with implementation of the Citys standard Air Quality Conditions of Approval, as required by law. The cumulative impacts would well below the BAAQMD significance would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the Projectlevel thresholds, the Project - would also not result in a cumulatively considerable contributio hazard impacts. Therefore, the cumulative health impacts would bsignificant. South San Francisco CAP and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and the applicable CAP. Therefore the Project stated regulations contained in the plans. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumlative impact with respect to GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with the plans, po adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, th- than-significant impact on climate change. TheProject would not conflict with the plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpos of reducing GHG emissions. No mitigation is required. Biology Finding: After review of CNDDB reports and map overlays for the general P area, and field evaluations of the site, the habitat was found to be highly distur from other areas containing sensitive habitat. The Applicant pr nesting season or in compliance with biological protocol for protory birds. As a result, the site is considered to be of very low value for plant for sensitive species of plants and animals. No significant biol full development of the Project site. Cultural Resources Finding: There are no structures on the Project site. The Project wou have a less than significant impact on archaeological or paleont than a mile from the historic baylands, contains no culturally significant soils in the geotechnical boring, and the disturbance from the grading that occurred in th Geology and Soils Finding: There are no active faults underlying the site and the neares one is the San Andreas Fault, located about 2.9 miles southwest. Implementation of the geotechnical measures required by law (the Citys standard permi review of all geotechnical reports and the final recommendations Project) are proposed as part of the Project and identified in the CEQA document. Detailed earthwork and foundation requirements for design and constructiotheProject will be implemented. GeoTrinity (or qualified successor) will review the and specifications to assure quality control. GeoTrinity will be on site full time during the initial intermittently during the remaining site workandwill as necessary make changes to practices and methods to assure the safety and stability of the Project ans. CSA will be present on the Project site intermittently to oversee grading measures identified by GeoTrinity and CSA would reduce geologic instability to less than significant. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the Citys wastewater system. P3-95 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Hazards and Hazardous Materials Finding: The Project is a sensitive receptor and not a source of hazardous materials. The Project would have no impact or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools within a quarter of environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cor impact of the Project with regard to the use of hazardous materiould be less than significant and similar to other residential uses in the neighborhood. The P less than significant impact with respect to the release of haza construction. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The the Project would have no impact on the implementation of any ad plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project is not within 2 m and would have no impact on such use. Project impacts relating t be less than significant with implementation of the conditions of approv Hydrology and Water Quality Finding: The Citys standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by l any potential water quality impacts as a result of Project const Project site is 348 feet above msl, would be outside the runup zone subject to inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would be outside the any potential tsunami haza Flood Zone X and not subject to an 100-year flood event. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified. The Project would not result in an or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quali Land Use Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. T site is planned for a single-family use and the Project is consistent with the planned uses. are no conservation or natural community conservation plans that area. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulable impacts. Minerals Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally signif resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contrib mineral resources. Noise Finding: The implementation of measures the Applicant proposes would ensure that the Project complies with the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance an short-term noise impacts at sensitive receptors in the Project vicinit noise would be a less-than-significant impact with implementation of the measures the Applicant proposes as part of the Project. The temporary construction vibration associated with on-site equipment would not be anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels, and would result in a less-than-significant impact. The Project is not located within two miles of a private airstri dB SFO noise contour. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. P3-96 901LA -C3EC AGE ARCH VENUE HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST C3:EC HAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST Population and Housing Finding: The Project site has been planned for a residential use since the 1950s. The Project site is vacant and would add one housing unit and not displace housing units or residents. Public Services Finding: The Project was reviewed by Police and Fire Department representatives and staffing or facility needs were not identifi the Project site would not increase the demand for public services ind Parks and Recreation Finding: The Project, the addition of one single-family residence, th planned for since the mid-20 century would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. Transportation Finding: The Project would not impact the streets, pose hazards associate with its use, or pose incompatible land uses. Police and Fire re issues or concerns with respect to emergency access. The development patt neighborhood was designed to accommodate residential uses. The impacts associated with emergency access. The Project would resu alternate transportation modes or conflict with adopted policies public transit, pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the facilities. The Project is a compatible land use with the neighbhood and will replace sidewalks, driveway approaches and curb and gutter as required by the City approval. Utilities and Service Systems Finding: The wastewater treatment plant has the capacity to treat Project and cumulative projected wastewater. The Project is one single family residence th that has been planned for since the mid-20 century. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable or Project-related impact. The Project would not result in a need to obtainnew water allocations to serve existing, Project or the developm in the South San Francisco General Plan. The UWMP, adopted in 2006, shows adequate water is available for the Project and projected cumulative development. There is adequate capacity at Ox Mountain landfill for Project and cum the City is meeting its 50 percent solid waste diversion mandate,and operations of the Project would be required to incorporated LIDss for stormwater treatment; an improvement over existing conditions. Construction would generate a less than significant amount of solid waste, an be in full compliance with all federal, state, and local statutes, and regulations related to solid waste. Stormwater is required to be treated on-site. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, or u P3-97 901LA-C3EC AGE ARCH VENUEHAPTER NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST AA PPENDIX Q A IR UALITY Construction and Operational Emission Modeling, RCH Group. November 2015. CalEEmod Output Files, RCH Group. November 2015. A PPLICANT Environmental Mitigation Measures [proposed by Applicant], Vinal Nand. December 2, 2015. B IOLOGY Michael Marangio, Biological Resources Assessment Prepared for Allison Knapp Wollam, Consulting, Proposed Residence, 901 Larch Avenue, South San Francisco, California. November 10, 2015. G EOLOGY Applicants Reports-GeoTrinity GeoTrinityConsultants, Inc., Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Residential Development Avenue, South San Francisco, California. May 1, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Supplemental Letter for May 2015 Report and August 6, 2015 Plans August 18, 2015. GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., Response to Peer Review Letter. September 23, 2015. City Peer Review-Cotton Shires Associates Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenu. May 26, 2015. Cotton Shires Associates, Inc., Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Nand New Residence, 901 Larch Avenue. October 2, 2015. Appendix A Construction and Operational Emissions CalEEMod Output Files -Annual -Summer -Winter August 18, 2015 Mr. Vinaal Nand 585 Villaa Street #10 Daly Cityy, Californiaa 94014 Re: Supplementall Letter for MMay 2015 Reeport and Reevised (Auguust 6, 2015) Plans RResidentialDDevelopmentt 901 Larch Avvenue South San Fraancisco, Callifornia Dear Mr.. Nand: Our Mayy 2015 geoteechnical/geollogic report for the propposed develoopment was based on a sset of drawingss dated Aprril 2015. TThe plans for the profpposed devellopment havve been reevised somewhaat since thenn. Accordinng to the graading and draainage plan prepared byy GeoTrinityy Consultantss dated Auguust 6, 2015, thee project wiill mainly coonsist of a ttwo-story, wwood- and cconcrete-framme, single faamily house wiith 2,038 sqquare feet off reduced livving space wwith partiallly depressedd two-car gaarage. Thus, thee residence wwill be slighhtly smaller. Also, the loocations and heights of tthe proposedd new cut slopees will differr; some willl be taller and some shoorter. Specifically, the rrevised drawwings show thaat 4- to 6-foot-tall retainning walls wwill support a new tieredd cut slope excavatedoon the uphill (ssoutheast) sside of the residence for a smaall rear pattio. Basemeent walls uup to approximmately 15 feeet tall will support andd form the nnortheastern walls of thhe residencee, and walls up to approximmately 19 feeet tall will ssupport and form the sooutheasternaand southweestern walls of tthe residencee. In our oopinion, the conditions,conclusionns, and recoommendationns in our MMay 2015 reeport, except foor the site rettaining wall foundation,remain appllicable to thee new propoosed developpment configuraation and thhe aforementtioned reviseed plans. Duue to the prroximity of the site retaaining walls, alll the site retaaining walls at the upperr terrace willl be entirely supported byy drilled pieers. Shouldyyou have anyy questions oor require additional infoormation, pleease do not hhesitate to caall 7770 Pardee Lane, Suuite 101, Oakland, CACA 94621 Phone: 5510-383-9950 Fax: 510-383-9957 1 of 1 our projeect manager,Mr. Jerry RR. Yang, at 925-699-25500. Sincerelyy, it GeoTriny Consultaants, Inc. Jerry R. YYang, P.E. GG.E. Frank J. Groffie, P.G., C.E.G. ProjectMManagerChief Enngineering Geeologist fjg:mac Copies: AAddressee (1) MMr. Ted Sayre, CCSA (1) RRozalynne Thommpson, City off South San Fraancisco (1) 7770 Pardee Lane, Suuite 101, Oakland, CACA 94621 Phone: 5510-383-9950 Fax: 510-383-9957 2 of 2 SSeptember 23, 2015 MMr. Vinal Naand 9901 Larch AAvenue SSouth San Frrancisco, Caalifornia SSubject:Response to Peer Revview ProposedResidentialDevelopmennt 901 Larchh Avenue South Sann Francisco, California GTCProjject No. CS-1481 DDear Mr. Naand: TThis letter ppresents ouur responses to the doccument titleedGeotechnnical Peer Review, Naand New RResidence,9901 Larch Avvenue, datedd May 26, 20015, preparedd by Cotton Shires & Asssociates forr the City oof South Saan Franciscoo. The May 26 review letter preseents commennts on threee documentss for the pproject: GTCC’s May 1 geologic/geotechnicalrreport, GTCC’s April 211 set of archhitectural pllans, and GGTC’s Apriil 22 set of grading plans. Cerrtain of thhe responses below prresent suppplemental rrecommendaations, and thhus your conntractor shouuld be made aware of thee contents off this letter. CComment 1 concerns thhe excavatioon for the new residencce at 901 Laarch Avenue with regard to the Responnse eexisting residdence at 8599 Larch Avenue.: This is a potentiallyy sensitive aarea in that thhere’s an eexisting house next doorr, and we apppreciate thee reviewers’ attention too this area. TThe floor off the new bbasement wiill be at Eleev. 108 ft (llocal datumm), roughly llevel with LLarch Avenuue. The gradde at the eexisting residdence is at aapprox. Elevv. 108 ft, also roughly leevel with Laarch Avenue. Thus, an immaginary pplane projeccted from thhe bottom eedge of thee existing reesidential fooundation too the propoosed new eexcavationwwould slope very gently,, if at all, towward the neww basement excavation. The propossed 10-ft- ddeep cut for the new baasement is duue to the local modifiedd topographhy, which inccludes the nnortheast- th ffacing mid-220-century cut slope. AAs shown in Figure 5 (CCross Sectionn B) of our rreport, if a pportion of tthe soil/rockk between thhe existing aand new struuctures weree to move innto the new excavation,it would llikely involvve only a smaall volume oof material annd not affectt the existingg house. Respoonse Comment 2 concerns freeeboard atopp retaining wwalls.: The neext version of the plans wwill show tthe freeboarrd atop certain retaining walls as recommendded in our MMay 1 repoort. Specificcally, the rretaining waalls downsloppe of the existing fill weedge (see Fiigure 3 in reeport) will bbe shown witth 2 ft of ffreeboard.WWe do not believe that ffreeboard is needed atopp other retaaining walls:: the originaal natural Page 1 of 3 01 Larch Avenue, Response Leter 9/24/15 99tt gground surfaace upslope iis at a gradieent of 2½H:1V, is underrlain by thinn (1 ft of) sooil, and has ddisplayed nno evidence of mass movvement. RResponse CComment 3 concerns suurface drainaage along thhe tops of ceertain retainiing walls. :OOur report ((specifically at the end oof Section 4..5) recommeends surfacedrainage diitches atop thhe retaining walls on tthe southwesst and southeeast sides off the residencce. The nextt version of tthe project pplans will shhow these rrecommendeed subdrain aand back draain behind thhe retaining wwalls. Responsee CComment 4 concerns retaining walll foundations.: The next version of tthe project pplans will sshow all rettaining wallss to be suppported with pier foundaations to relieve the suurcharge loaad on the aadjacent tall basement wwalls in the sttructural design. Responnse CComment 5 concerns seeismic desiggn parameteers for the rretaining waalls.: In our sstructural ddesign, we ccan verify an additionall force behinnd the retainning wall coonsidered ass an equivallent fluid wweight of 25 pcf for bothh native soils and Caltraans standard backfill matterials, actinng at a distannce of 2/3 oof the heightt of the walll from the base of the reetaining walll under a Saafety Factorr of 1.5. Hoowever in oour experiennce, the seismmic load is uusually oversshadowed byy the Static SSafety Factoor of 2.5 for common bbox type singgle family hoouse except for single roow of tall eleevated bridge abutment wwall. CComment 6 concerns thhe potential for tumblinng rocks to impact thee existing neeighboringrresidence Respponse dduring the coonstructionpperiod.: We recommend tthat a tempoorary fence bbe installed aalong the bboundary beetween the ttwo propertiies and dowwnslope of tthe excavatiion work. TThis fence shhould be cconstructedof geotextile (e.g., biaxxial, low–mooderate strenngth), extennd 4 ft (minn.) above thee ground ssurface, and be tied to stteel fence sttakes/posts ddriven into tthe ground. BBased on thhe topographhy and on tthe subsurfacce data pressented in ourr May 1 repport, we beliieve a rock tumbling haazard will be present oonly early inn the excavattion work annd will involvve rocks smaaller than appprox. 8 inchhes in diametter. Reesponse CComment 7 concerns an estimate offconstructionn timing. : In our experieence, the connstruction wwill start around late Aprril in 2016 aand the earthwwork and drrill piers usuaally will take about 3 moonths. IIf you have aany questionn regarding tthese responnses to the peer-reviewccomments,pplease do not hesitate tto call our offfice. Thank you. SSincerely, GGeoTrinityConsultantss, Inc. Page 2 of 3 01 Larch Avenue, Response Leter 9/24/15 99tt Jerry Yang, P.E., G.E. Project Manager JJY/LK Copies: Addressee (2) Mr. Ted Sayre-Cotton Shires & Associates (1) Page 3 of 3 901 Larch Avenue, Response Letter 9/24/15