HomeMy WebLinkAboutCostco Draft EIR April 1999•-
.- Draft
__ Environmental Impact Report
Project
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Lead Agency:
City of South San Francisco
April, 1999
Table of Contents
Section 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................. 1-1
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Purpose and Overview of the Environmental Review Process...... 3
2.2 Lead Agency ..........................................................................................3
2.4 Initial Study ..........................................................................................4
2.5 Content and Organization of the Document .......................................5
2.6 Notice of Preparation ................................................................................5
3.0 Project Characteristics .....................................................................................6
3.1 Project Location ..........................................................................................6
3.2 Project Description .....................................................................................6
3.3 Project Objectives .......................................................................................11
3.4 Actions Addressed in EIR ....................................................................... .12
3.4 Site History ......................................................................................... .12
4.0 Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................... .13
4.1 Earth and Geotechnical ............................................................................ .15
4.2 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................... .18
4.3 Transportation and Circulation ............................................................. .23
4.4 Air Quality ......................................................................................... .37
4.5 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ .49
4.6 Aesthtics and Light and Glare ................................................................ .51
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .......................................................... .53
5.1No Project ......................................................................................... .53
5.2 Alternative 2: Multi-Family Residential ............................................ .54
5.3 Alternative 3: Retail Commercial Development ............................. .55
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative .............................................. .55
6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects ..................................................................... .57
6.1 Short-Term Uses v. Long-Term Productivity .................................... .57
6.2 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................. .57
6.3 Significant Irreversible Impacts ............................................................. .58
6.4 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ............................ .58
6.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. .58
6.6 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts .................... .60
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ....................................................... .61
7.1 Persons and Organizations ..................................................................... .61
7.2 References ................................................................................................... .61
8.0 Appendices ....................................................................................................... .62
May 02 99 09:16a RDE (5101 548-5964 p.2
Errata Sheet
Costco DEIR
City of South San Francisco
May 4,1999
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 should be revised to read as follows.
Please replace the original Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 contained in
the EIR document with the following.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (Near-Term Roadway Impacts): The project
developer shall provide a fair share financial contribution to the following
intersections to fund necessary traffic signalization and roadway
improvements to reduce potential impacts to a Level of Service B.
• Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard
• El Camino Real/Mission Road
• Hickey Boulevard/Camaritas Avenue
• El Camino Real/Arlington Drive
The timing and amount of contribution of improvements shall be determined
by the South San Francisco Public Works Department.
In addition, the El Camino Real/Westborough-Chestnut intersection shall be
improved by adding an additional left-turn lane on the north, south and west
legs of the intersection. An exclusive right-turn lane shall also be added to the
east leg of the intersection. This would improve intersection operations to LOS
D during the PM peak hour,
Z ,~
F
...
~ ~
.~
h
V
Q~ c~
V
r~
`/ 3
a ~
~ °
a
~ ~~
z ~~
w ~ o
~ ~~
z ~~
a°a .~
~ ~ ~
~, ~
Z
W ~v
W ~~
~ ~~ o
~ ~
~ .~ w
d ~_
N ~
~~ Q
~ ~~
.F+
C w
d1 O
~ O 'C
~ ,~
.t1 ~
°.~, ~
~ ~
H r
."~
0
.,
.~
w
W
O
~ .~
'~
.y +~
~
T
+
~ W ~ ~
V
~ ~ •.. a
o
~ ~ b
o
'
~ v~
z~ z
~.
.
~
a1
«S
~
aJ
~ o
~°
~
. z
~ ~ ~ ~ U v
°~
a~~~° a,a
~~~o ~~~
~
~ ~ 0 3-d >,°~°
~
®o~o~~~'~~d~~
boa, ~]
~ 3~? ° o ~
V y
O
~
~
O
x"
w
i
r
~"'~
a
.+
o
w"-'O ~ a~ a'~
~,
~
~.
~~aoo
~3
~
~
~ b0 ~ ~ o'er ~'~ ~ u'd
a ~~`~~~~~cn.~U
OC7
O
~
U
°
~~
~
~ a~
Q~ f~ ~
~ .~
C
co
~" V ~
.ii
v ~ .. aJ ~ O p '~
~ '~' s.. v .'_' O V Cn v ' ^" a:
W LL
E" ~ !~ O .~ ~ w i]. aXi O .~ LY] ~ ~
~ ~
o
p ~- fn
~ N o
~
i ~
w v
i ef+ U U
.b
0
V
.;
C
W
0
U
N
C
^" +-~
~
w bA V
.. ~ ~-
c~
u a
a~ ~
E •
~ ~
~' °' o
zQ z
•H
~
~
V
v
c~
y
C~
.N
-F+
f~
0
r.~.1 ~
•
.~
~
ii O
z
o ~
o ~
b0 ~' .__, ,.
~ ~' v .
~ ~ ~ C
~
b0 y ~ O O ~ ~,,.~ a" ~ ~ ~ ;~ y ~
~
a' ~ ~ ~ C, ~ p ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
.
,
~ ~' o ~~, a
~ '~ °' 3 ~ ~ a
'~ u
, o
~
a~
~
b .o ~~u
~
~3~~4"0'~3 ~°'o
:~~~ ~'z
~
.
3 °'ov ooo o~
C ° vo ~>~~~ o
~ 3v
~ ~~ ~
~ W ~ ~a ~m °~'~~oa ~~°' ~~ i
°C
.
0 v
~ °~ ~
~'
bi0
b ~~ ° ~ ~
o
F o
cn x
v o
~
a~ ~~ , a
i
a
~ Gvb ~ ~
'n'~ c~
cn.~ c
~cn
a~ s
a o
a' cn
~ N ~o
a
~~ ~ o~
W~ ~ UU
b
C
c
0
V
.;
W
W
~--i
C
O
.~U
N
o ++ M
rl ~ T
T
'~
w+ bA V ~ 'c
.w fC ~-
a~ ~ a
~ ..,
~. ~
~' ~ o
zd z
~I
• rl
Q~
~I
.'~
i~r f~
"~ ~
CO
.+.~
~" f~
O bA
~ •.r
bQ
..n
r..i O
z
v ~ g ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o
_ '~ ~ .O ~ b4 ~ V G~
-~ ~ ,_,
t~ O y ~ ~ b0 ~' b ~ ~ V ~ V
.~ ~ O O ~ ~~ 3 i~r ~i ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ aD ~ `n ~ ~ ~, v 'L3 ~ w ~ ~~.
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ u u
~ ~ w cn «t +' ++ '++ -p b1D bA ~ ~
v .~~ ~~,,, ~, ~ v d" ~ ,ate., ~ t0 •~ •~ G~J 3 ~ W ~
•O vii +.~". '~ 'y ,G~^~ x„~ ~ w ~i ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ C
F '~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
'o ~
a a r°
0 0 .~
.., M v O
•+ ~ .~
A4 ~ ,~,.i w ~.
Wv~ e!~ UU
~~ C
~ o
~ ~
`~
V
~ ~ ~ V
~v V ~
"" W W
a
~ ~ ~
ao ~
~
~ w' ~ 0 0
z~ z z
0
0
.y
U
W
it
h
C~
C
O
..r
Cei
b4
..,
.~
v
.~
O
H
Q
0
ai u
-.~ y
W v~
..,
~.
f~
Q1
Q
O
.,.+
r
bfJ
...,
.,.,
O
z
~ ~ .~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
v~3cn~~u~,v~~
w ~ by ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~
~ O ~'d ~ ~'~ O~ ~ O
~ vpi •~ ~ ~ ,~ 3 cn ~ U ~
'C ++ _O ,~ O _ ~ ~ e~ O cn
°.~'~~o~vaaQ'oo~~
4+ ~ v ~ . ~~.' y ~ C!j N v O
~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~
O~°3~~°-dao-~~oo°
e-~
N
eM
...
a~
v
fcS
°
..r
++
Ri
bA
...
...,
O
z
u ~~ ~ v m
~~~ ~o~,~.~ ~~oU
,, ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ v ~ o ~a,~
~ ~ ^v O vii ~ .~ O Q'' ~ .~+~.-' ~ ~ O
N
N
m
~~
Rf
d
0
U
~U
W LL
~ c
co
~s
0 0
a~
o .~
U O
y ~
O _
U U
C
td
C
C
O
w
.;
C
w
w
O
O
C
O
.~
o ~'
~ r
~,
~
V a~
~
w+ bA
.
.i
(p
~-
.r
~~
~
a
~
~ ~
~ .
~
~' °~' o
z~ z
b
i~
~
.,.
d"~
i-i
Fr
~
Rr ~
~
~ ~
C~
0
..~
. ,
-F+
~ ~
•
.~
..n
w+ .
.~-+
•
~ ~
.
r..i O
z
~~
~
~~
~
~o~~o
~ O ~ ~ ~ '~
aQ
ocn~ ~
,
~
~
~
~
~
~'~'~o°'
~a~
a
c o ~ -d
r" ~ °' ~ ~U
v x.03 ~~
o
C
... ~ ~'~ > ~ ~N
~
+ o~ ~
LL
p GJ
~
i"' 'O Gl
'~ ,--, Ov . ~ ~ ,~
a a
~ ~' W
p ~
~, cn
0
0
a
M v O
~ y N O ~'
W ~ d+ U U
.~
b
cd
c~
~~
0
.;
W
w
0
0
a
0
.~
C
0
~ ~ V ~
CO .r"'. ~ `~".~
~ ~
• •
,~ ~ ,4, ++
z
z~ z
~
~ ~ ~~ ~
~ .~o ~
¢,.~ o .~ r ~ .~ ~ ~ rr
~~~Q"~ov~
~ °A `~
M °
' ° ~ 3 $
~ ~' ~ o cn
a~ ,
~~o~o ~?~~~~ ~a ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ °' ~~ °
~ .~ o
.~ °:
~ o
~o~o ~`~~~cn ~
~
.~ ~°J~a `~ aavav' w~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~o
~ ~
~~w ~
~
~H c, o ~ o
z
~ .
.
. Q 3 ~
~
~~
~~~
~~o
a
~,
~ ~ o
"
3 '"
"
~ ~ ~ ~
v ow~ o
d ~'' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ v
\ ~ ~ ~
H ~ a .ai
~
'a ~ ~ ..
~~~ .
~
F z~~ ~
a
0
.,.
y
~..~
a y M
W v1 d~
~~x ~x
~ a ~ a
~ ~~
~ o~
'
~
a
3~~
~~~ ~~
~~
~~~D ~~o
.~ ~ .~
~ V
~ ~
o -~ ~ o 'o
.~
~ ~
V ~
O ~V
~
O
~
W~
~W
'"
x
a bo
~ ~
.~
x
¢~ ~w xw
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~, o a~
o '~
~ ,~
-a ~ ~ ~
'
w "~~ ~~
U~ o ~ o~ o~
w ,.., .~ V CA R-. xaa
~ ~
~ ~
'~ ~ 3
~ ~ ~
~~~~
~ ~•~ ~
~~~~
~,
°.~~
3a~o~o
o
p4 °' `~ '~
a~~~
V G, ~ a
~ a~ v
~~C~~~
a~
w ~~ ~
eo ~ V ~ ~
z3u3°'
N
M
d+
co
a~
~~
cU
0
U
~U
C
~ ~
w "
~ c
cu
~~
~r
~° o
a~
o .~
U O
U U
w
O
0
o
~
.~ air ~
u .. ~; ,
~ ~
~ '
~-+ c, v,
as
z~ z
v ~ ° o
a~ ~ ~
H~~
3 ~~~ a
~
,~ u ~ ~
~" .~ ~ '~ •~
"~
~'ti~ o o ,~
~ ~~
~ cn ~ ~ ~
~ O .~
~
e~ u v
~,..,
C ~ ++ ~ Q,, c~i~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
., y O
~, o a
a a~,
~
°
~
~~~ ~
~
.
~,
~ •3 ~, ~.
o ~
~~ •~oo~
°~ o
~" . ~ ~ a ~
O
~
~
~
~ ~ O ~
~ ~
caw ~"~c ~
,
et! ~,
3~ y ~ ~ ~ N '~
~~~~-d
b ~ am
~
o ~
~ ~ o
~' c;~s ~
C ~o ~
~
°~
v F, r.. -d
,
~
a~~~ 30
.O ~ w V V~~ V V
H
a~
• ~c ~,
o 'moo
a
0
ai u M
M
W v~ eM
~~
o ~
~~ ~
~
~ ~~
.~
~
.~ o a~-o ~ ~ ° ~ .
~
~
-
.~ a~ ~ ~ ,
~~`~~~a~~ ~~~ a, ~o ~
O
~ ~ ~ ate-' 0 ~'-~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~
o ~ b o~ ~ ~o~ `~ ~ v ~
x ~•~ ~
"~~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ v w v ~
~ ~ '-" G.
~ ~ o~ o ~~U o'rsv ~ ~ ~
~ v
u ~ V ~ v ~ ~ cn
~ ~ ~
O
w '~
~ ~ G1 O ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o .~ ~.
~ °~Q ~ a3 a ~
. .
~
' ,~
°~ a
o ~ a o a v~
.+a
~~ .off ao~
~~ ~~ ~~ vw
•~ ~
~ ~ w
•. ~~ ~' ...
., ~ w .,
-
U ~p
° .~ ,
.
~U~ ~C~p ~
wcc
a,~w~,~w~,~
.~
bn
.~
~ ~
b
u:
~w
x:
., ~ ~
~O~~O
~ a o ~ ~
.~ '~ ~ ~ '~
.., ~ ai ~ ~
~~ ~o
U ~ ~ x ~
•
a~
d~
a
~ ~"
x~
v ~
0 0 .~
.~ ~ '~
~ w
~ ~ O
a c~ a ,.~
a~
a~ ~
c~
a
0
~U
~~
w "
p c
cn
~~
o
~~
o ...
U O
J U
a
0
.y
V rl
F•OI T
~ _~
~ ~ ~ V ~V ~
~ ~ ~~1 W W a
~ ~/-~ ~ bQ
1~1 Rw •Vl ~ y
r.+
~ ~ 0
z~ z z
0
.;
W
o ~A ,
b ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,Wa°~
~ 3 ~ ~ ~
~~ ~•~~ ~ Q~ ~,~
`n vii ~Q ~ ~~.~ *~~' XCC 3 ~,~~'d G
p O c~ ~ 0 ~ O ~ __Q' v O ~ y ~ ~ ~
~ v~ ~ 'T3 c~ • r+
¢, ~ m CJ .~
~a,~,v~~sco'a~vy 'Gam,°~a'ao
~ ~ ~
~ ~ a'i'd ~ u~'~ ~ G
~~o~ ~0^"3~~
3a~tw~ ~~voo~
~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~U ~
.. ~ u Gb~ ~,s~
~ .~ ..~ .~ ... O '~
.~ H Rf ~ ,~ y ~ ~ .d ~; ~ ~ W li
[-i G ~ ~ O ~ ~ w O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a3u3~ dv3a,u.~~ ~Y
~° o
a
~ ,~,,~ U O
w
M d~ o
~j ~ ~i d~ U U
c
0
.y
TT
+~ 1
•^ ~ V/
T
1~1 ~ T
b ~
~ .,,, ao u u °~ '~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U ~ '^~ !d
~ ~ ~ ~ ,~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~+
z~ z ~ z
0
~,
'c ~ ~ +~
W .~ C1 ++
'+. y ~ O ~ ~ 't3~,
o ,~ ,--. ++ ~ ~ y O
it .~.~
~ ~ O 'i O .p c~ O ~ ,~
C c~ ~ ~ O Q"~,,, y ' O c~
y i~.i f~ ~ • ~ ~ 4.r ++ ~i a ~ O
tr .~
i
~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~
i, a~ O~
~ +,
e~ip ~ ~ y ~D ~ ~ v ~ ;~ ~
~ z ~o ~~~~V~av~
.~ p a .~ Q :~' ~ o
v ~ v vii v ~ '~'d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q.. ~ v
tC cA
V O p a~i O~ _~ O 'X O H O B .a.. ~ C11 ~ v
c~ C7 ~ V O
yam, Q'' ~'~,, ~ -~'~+~.. .~ ox"+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~.~,
CL ~ m ~ ~ a~ v +~ ~ +' ~ ~ ~
a ~ ~ 0.'m ~ ~~ ~ ~-o ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ w
~ a, ~ -- cn
o
o a ~
o .~
O N M ~ ~ ~
a~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w ~ er ~ ~n
b
`~
c
0
.;
w
w
0
0
A
~ ~ ~ ~
'firr
`V
v ~,
R! .. w w w
~ ~±
0!J W
•~ •y •y
z~ z z z
R,
y
a
0
i
ao
r~
v
a
C
v
.~
0
F
C
O
y
a~
W v~
v
a
«s
O
•ao
.~
0
z
V
~
~
_
O ~
~
a ~'
~
•~
°~ v
~ v
~
~ ~ ~
O ~
° 'O
~
o o
~ ~..,.~ ° Q°., o
~ o
~
~~ ~
`~ ~•o
a
cw ~
°' ° ~ • ~
~ ~ ~
v
d ~ v
,~~a •,-~
~ +• ~,
°'~
~
~ ...
~
~
~ ~. .
H
d+
c~
O
•o
...,
0
z
~ is
~ ~j v O v
~~ ~~ 3 ~~ ~
a,o°'~~,-°3a
u U~ O u~ O
invo~0a,~~~~
o ~ ~ ~ °'"' •~: V
~~
.,
..
b
O °'
~
O ~
~ ccS .+
+
++ ~
y w ~
O V
~
Maw°
'~•+ .~~
r o~° ~ ~
~p r
«S '~ C1 ~ ..O ^' ~ ~ .~
~ .Q O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ cn
~~'~ a,.~ ~~a.,o ~
,o
.~oA
o ~~ ~a~-~s3~
'~
~
~= ° ;-
v o
a
~ ~ ~
.
., O
,
~ s.. ~
~ y X ~ ~., ~ ~
~~~ Q~ .~~~ ~ ~
0
+,~+ •~ y
3 ~s ~ b
~ ~ V a ~
O y W O ~
~, u O ~ O
~-d ~ ~~
~ .~ ~ .~ ;~ biD
~~,~'p ~
a o ~ •,__. ¢.,,~
~3~~~~1D
~~
~~~~ ~
~ •O _~ ~
C~ p.r" v ,~
~b °b~ ~o
v ~ 'd
~ °o,~~ ~•
aa°rwa~
M
~O
o
^T`
W C
rn
c~
d
0
U
~U
C
¢ ~
w~
o~
~o
~r
° o
~~
O .~
O
U U
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Purpose and Overview of the Environmental Review Process
This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (to be known hereafter in
this document as the DEIR), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended. This DEIR describes existing
environmental conditions within and adjacent to the proposed Costco development
within the City of South San Francisco. The DEIR also includes measures which
could be incorporated into the project to mitigate (lessen) anticipated
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance or eliminate them entirely.
Finally, this DEIR identifies and analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed
project, cumulative impacts of this and other projects on the environment, and
other mandatory elements as required by CEQA.
Responses to comments received regarding this DEIR during the public review
period will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Together,
the DEIR and FEIR constitute the full Environmental Impact Report for the project.
As provided in CEQA and implementing guidelines, public agencies are charged
with the responsibility of avoiding or minimizing environmental damage to the
fullest extent feasible. In fulfilling this responsibility, public agencies must balance a
variety of objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors. As an
informational document to local officials, governmental agencies and members of
the public, the purpose of the EIR is to serve as a disclosure document, identifying
potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives.
Approval of the EIR by the lead agency does not constitute approval of the
underlying project, in this instance, the proposed adoption of the proposed Costco
retail warehouse project.
2.2 Lead Agency
The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency for preparation of the EIR, as
defined by Section 21067 of CEQA. This means that the City of South San Francisco
is designated as the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for
approving or carrying out the proposed project and for assessing likely
environmental effects of the proposal.
Preparation of this EIR is in accord with CEQA, including all amendments thereto,
and Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Methodologies used for determining standards of significance for each impact
category analyzed in the EIR are based on CEQA Guidelines and are described in
Section 4 of this DEIR. By applying appropriate significance criteria, impacts under
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 3
City of South San Francisco April 1999
each environmental topic have been categorized as either "significant" or "less than
significant." Methods used to determine the level of significance of potential
impacts vary depending on the environmental topic, as described in the individual
subsections.
2.4 Initial Study
Based on the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix 8.1) and
discussions with the City of South San Francisco, the following environmental
topics have been deemed not to have a potential for significant environmental
impacts and therefore are not addressed in this Focused DEIR.
Population and Housing: The proposed approval of the project would not
involve construction of new housing or residential construction.
• Water and Hydrology:. The site is presently substantially developed with
paved parking areas and buildings so that no major increases in storm water
runoff would be needed. Since the site is over five acres in size, the project
developer will be required to obtain a Notice of Intent from the State Water
Quality Control Board which will ensure that methods to maximize water
quality will be incorporated as part of construction and long term operations.
The project site is not subject to flooding.
• Energy and Mineral Resources: New construction would be built to the most
recent building codes and standards to ensure maximum conservation of
energy resources. No unusual quantities of mineral resources are anticipated
to be needed.
• Noise:: Although incremental increases in levels of short-term noise would
be created by construction of the project, adherence to existing City noise
regulations (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code), which includes limitations
on hours of construction, will reduce noise to less-than-significant levels.
• Biological Resources: The project site is not believed to contain rare,
threatened or endangered plant or animal species.
• Cultural Resources: The project site is not believed to contain archeological,
paleontological, historical or other artifacts of historical, religious or sacred
significance.
• Public Services and Facilities: The project site is located within an urbanized
area and is served with a full range of public facilities and services, including
water, sewer, storm drainage, police, fire, electrical and natural gas energy and
other services and facilities.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 4
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Recreation: The proposed project would not result in a need for increased
recreation facilities or significantly impact existing recreation facilities since
no new residential construction is proposed as part of the project.
2.5 Content and Organization of the Document
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines describe the content
requirements of EIRs. EIRs must include:
• a description of the proposed project, including objectives to be achieved by
the project;
• a description of existing environmental conditions;
• an analysis of the anticipated impacts on the environment should the project
be built or carried out as proposed;
• feasible measures which can be taken by the proponent or the City to lessen or
mitigate identified environmental impacts;
• project alternatives, including the "no project" alternative;
• significant irreversible environmental changes;
• growth inducing impacts;
• cumulative impacts, including environmental impacts of the proposed
project viewed over time in conjunction with related past, present and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose potential impacts may
compound or interrelate with the proposed project.
2.6 Notice of Preparation
The City of South San Francisco has completed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for
the proposed project and has circulated the NOP to all Responsible Agencies, other
public agencies and interested citizens as required by CEQA. Copies of the NOP and
responses received by the Lead Agency during the NOP review period are included
within the appendix of this document (Appendices 8.2 and 8.3).
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 5
City of South San Francisco April 1999
3.0 Project Characteristics
3.1 Project Location
The proposed project site is located within the northerly portion of South San
Francisco, on the east side of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately 1,200
feet south of the intersection of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. The street
address of the property is 1556 El Camino Real. Assessor's Parcel Number for the site
is 010-212-070. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of the project site.
The site encompasses approximately 26.7 acres of land and has a relatively flat but
gradual slope to the east towards Colma Creek.
Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the proposed project site in relationship to major
community features and streets.
Surrounding uses include a trailer park and recreational vehicle storage yard to the
north, Colma Creek and a cemetery to the east within the City of Colma and vacant
lands to the south. A new residential development is under construction to the
west, on the west side of El Camino Real, consisting of 174 single family dwellings
and 34 townhomes.
3.2 Project Description
The proposed project includes construction of a new warehouse distribution center
on the site, to be owned and operated by Costco Wholesale. The proposed site plan
for the project is depicted on Exhibit 4.
A Costco warehouse sales facility is planned to be located on the northwest corner of
the site. This building would include approximately 147,000 gross square feet of floor
area in a single story configuration, with primary interior uses being administrative
offices, a central receiving area and the wholesale portion of the building. The
building would be used for wholesaling of goods and services, including food
products, clothing, personal care, household and electronic goods, automotive
supplies and similar products for resale, commercial and personal use. Sales would
also occur to individuals who are members of selected employee and related groups.
Hours of operation would be from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Exhibit 2 depicts the
proposed site plan for the Costco facility.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 6
City of South San Francisco April 1999
..
A
M
M
awr
Rafael {_._I eo
j Richmond
Mill tot
Valley
~'~
~~ ~~ % Berkeley
~~ ~ ~~
~_„
n ~
.Oakland
San Francisco
tot
'~
Daly
A City
South
San
Francisco
ti,
Aa,
n
~., Half
Moon
bay
ce
Q
qia ~`
-~~ e°a
Martinez
Concord
Walnut
.Creek
SA h' ~~ San
,~ Leandro
FRANCISCO
~ Livermore
8 A }'
Pleasanton
~ Hayward
San Mateo
Fremont
ea
Redwood
City
e4
Palo
Alto
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San
Jose
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
COSTCO PROJECT
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
0 2 4 6 8 f0 miles
m
a
ti
a
>+
a
~.
En
(City of Colma)
~~
92
'~
~, ~~
(Daly City) ~ ~ . ~~` \ ~ c~~ `'~, ~~ It
a~+r:
p1~ /V ~~ ~ ~ / ~ Ip
~~ ~
~ GLYE1t1 ~' ~ ~
Duv~\ moo. aw. _.1T° ,~e ~. ~q
~~ y ~ ? ~ ^t, a J~ ITS ~ri~ cY.,q~~ ~~ g • S
~,y". eD*\ V ~ ~' +t~ r\t
V P ORI/M '/V. Mo. ~ ~' ,~, b
t i.IY ~ f ~ \ ,\\ m '~ Oe d! Y
f n 1 \ O
35 \ ise 1 g ~~ Gf! '~ i' f~\ \ PERMAN~NiE ~ DR ~4b
.a a '4 i !~~ ! ERp
~7~~f '~ ~ a 1 ' It ~` ~ CENTER E nr Cr ~~E
crr RWt DR. ~ ~ ~ e+~ . y!~ ~Y dt
M
~\ I`~Nlt ~ ! ~ eyy~ uiE ~ aERheEa Eloa
V i`r!R/k n
~~~ ~~ aq {~' ~rf \• INa ~r d
(City of Pacilica) ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~. ~.+~t~ ~ "' ~' a."0<<
4 e ` 9' p
0 x
`'~ ~`p. ' a"teauE EEi ~ ~~~ ~ ~amrzsn ~ * `~d 'ed~ °f' ~y \ ~ Iy~
a ~ ~ ~' `~ C R. ' 6 EII. ~ A ~ \ tE ~1~j, CALIFORNIA ~`+'„ ~s j
al. t \ ~~ ~. a~ °""~M trv u. C \.r eon \`~$y. ,
~1 ,,~a '
~C~ ? ? i' Na N p i'E~t Ic u. \ ~ ale4 GOLF CU/B ~
Exhibit 2
SITE CONTEXT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
COSTCO PROJECT
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
0 1/0 1/2 3/4 1 mile
~ y
~
~ ~
J~1N
F9
N*
F ~ ~ ~~ o.,
a N
--{{
~~ SZ~ ~~
~ ~
~~ s~
NY
~~ ~ ~~~ Ya
A ~~
U ~ ~
K' ~
~"' 'o spa
{NO h
P^ ~g
ry
r ~
u ~
~~
~ ~
~I~
N UI
n~ r
g
~~ ~ ~~
~~ ~~
~ ~s ~~
~~ a~
n
~m~~~
~~-~Qp7~p7
~SYJO
~~ ~
~~ ~
N Uf JI JI Y
..pp QQ ~
prp08~ ~ N
Yryry±
N
s
~~
~2~~ ~~~
~~~~ ~~
N ~NpN N yyN
~n' ~ V
6
~~
~~g ~ ~~
a}
or~~~~
oo~l° ~~
YINZIOdITYO `OOSIONdNd AIVS HLf1OS
66-9Z-Z NtlTd 9.i.IS Sd97MOO
d i8I-L6 OAI .LJ3lO~Id
Z
L N I
w W
V
O
z .~I
U
~~
/~:\,~~do ~ ~
.` / / ma y i L -ti
;~~ ~-' i
/
,~' ~_ ~ ~; r,s
o
~ -/
j • / iy r .
•~ J' ~. f /~ ~ L• b` ~ a D ~~ tt` R'~,
\o ~` ~ / f ~ '~ j
~• /Y • /
/ ~ / /
~ ~ r~ j,' ,, ~' / Q
`~~ / ~ ' Z n
.i/~// //' /' y~
i /' ~ F W
. ~' ~ ~ ~
/' ~/, /
naiad 6661 bb~OZ~Li 9Z Qa~ [d~ 6Np"EZ-i0Vi8tL\AOi11S\iBi-L6\L6\091S00\~H
Another component of the project would be an automobile gasoline service station
to be constructed in conjunction with the warehouse facility. The gas station would
be located along the easterly side of the site near the 60,000 square foot building with
use of the gas station restricted to Costco members only. Four pump islands with
canopies would be built with 8self-service pumps installed. A maximum of 16
vehicles could be refueled at one time. Hours of operation for the gas station would
be from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days per week. New underground tanks would be
installed as part of the gas station.
In addition to the above, up to 50,000 square feet of retail space would be built on the
project site, although specific users and a precise site plan have not yet been
developed.
Access to the site would be provided via two driveways along El Camino. The main
entrance would be via a fully signalized drive located approximately 1300 feet north
of the planned intersection of El Camino and the proposed Hickey Boulevard
extension. The secondary entrance would be located along the northerly property
line, approximately 800 feet north of the main project entry. Approximately 850
parking spaces would be provided.
Associated improvements would also consist of minor site grading, construction of
landscaping and irrigation systems within the parking lots and adjacent to buildings,
installation of utility upgrades, including but not limited to water, sewer, drainage
and telecommunication improvements, construction of identification signs and
installation of new site lighting.
The existing warehouse on the site was recently demolished, with opening of the
new Costco facility planned for late 1999.
3.3 Project Objectives
Objectives to be achieved as part of the project include:
1) Facilitating a higher and better utilization of the site through the
development of a modern wholesale outlet facility;
2) Increasing employment opportunities in the community;
3) Assisting in toxic clean-up within the project area;
4) Increasing tax and other revenues to the City of South San Francisco and
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 11
City of South San Francisco April 1999
3.4 Actions Addressed in EIR
Specific actions addressed in this Environmental Impact Report include:
• Certification of the EIR;
• Consideration of a Use Permit by the South San Francisco Planning Division;
• Issuance grading, sewer, stormwater and building permits by City of South
San Francisco;
• Relocation of an existing 15-inch on-site sanitary sewer line;
• Issuance of a Type C Sign Permit by the City of South San Francisco;
• Encroachment permits from Caltrans to allow new driveways along El
Camino Real;
• A Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board to
ensure that storm water runoff from the site complies with surface water
quality standards;
• Encroachment permit from San Mateo County Flood Control District to
discharge additional quantities of stormwater into Colma Creek;
• Air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) to dispense gasoline from the proposed auto service station;
• Review by Congestion Management Agency to ensure consistency with the
County-wide Congestion Management Plan (CMP).
3.4 Site History
The project site was used previously used by Macys department store as a regional
warehouse and distribution center. Due to changing business practices, the facility
was no longer needed as a warehouse and was sold.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 12
City of South San Francisco April 1999
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Topics Addressed in the DEIR
This section of the DEIR identifies specific environmental areas which may be
affected as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. The impact areas
are discussed individually in subsections 4.1 through 4.8:
4.1 Earth and Geotechnical
4.2 Land Use
4.3 Transportation and Circulation
4.4 Air Quality
4.5 Hazardous Materials
4.6 Aesthetics and Light and Glare
Each topic area is covered in the following manner:
A. Environmental Issues
An overview of issues related to the topic area.
B. Environmental Setting
A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general
environmental conditions on and around the project sites.
C. Environmental Impacts
An identification and evaluation of potential impacts on the
environment, should the project be constructed as proposed. Standards of
environmental significance will also be listed which set forth the basis on
which the identification of environmental impacts will be made.
Standards of significance for this DEIR are based on such standards listed
in the California Environmental Quality Act.
Environmental impacts addressed in this document include the following:
Potentially significant impact, which means that the identified
impact would exceed the environmental standards of significance.
In some instances, impacts may be positive rather than adverse.
Less-than-significant impact, which means that although an
impact could be considered significant, it would not exceed the
minimum environmental thresholds of significance.
No impact, means that no environmental impact would be
expected for a particular environmental topic.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 13
City of South San Francisco April 1999
D. Mitigation Measures
An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be
incorporated into the project to reduce identified environmental impacts
to a level of insignificance.
4.1 EARTH AND GEOTECHNICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
This section of the DEIR addresses soil conditions, existing topographic and geologic
features, potential impacts related to site grading and soil erosion and the potential
for seismic-related hazards.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental Setting
The following background information is based on soils and geologic information
contained in a geotechnical report prepared by the applicant's geotechnical engineer,
Kleinfelder (2/25/99) supplemented by community-wide soils and geologic
information contained in the South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions
and Planning Issues report, September, 1997.
Regional conditions
The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, a series of
northwest trending mountains and valleys along the north-central California
coastline. The region has undergone a complex geologic history of sedimentation,
volcanism, fold faulting, uplift and erosion.
Two geologic formations, the Franciscan Melange and the Great Valley sequence
dominate the Coast Range. The Franciscan Melange is composed of interceded
graywackes, shales, and limestones. The rocks of the Franciscan Formation tend to
be fractured and mixed. The Great Valley sequence is composed of late Jurassic
shales and lower Cretaceous sandstones.
Soils
The project site is located near the westerly bank of Colma Creek. Lands in proximity
to the creek typically contain soils known as the Colma Formation, which extends
on either side of the alluvial fan comprising the Creek. This soil type is
characterized by loose, friable, well-sorted sand with subordinate gravel, silt and clay
deposited during the Pleistocene age. It generally provides good foundations for
structures and good earthquake stability if not substantially disturbed by artificial
cuts.
Seismic hazards
The site is located within a seismically active region of coastal California. Regionally
active faults in the vicinity of the project include the San Andreas, Hayward,
Calaveras, and San Gregorio-Seal Cove faults. These faults are capable of producing
significant earthquakes that could cause strong ground shaking in South San
Francisco. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the site
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 15
City of South San Francisco April 1999
and the Hayward fault is located about 16 miles to the northeast. The Calaveras fault
is located about 34 miles to the east and the San Gregorio-Sea Cove fault is located
about 13 miles to the southwest.
Historically, the area has been subject to intense seismic activity. The project site is
not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and no active fault zones
are known to exist on the site. However, the site will likely be subject to a high
degree of groundshaking from earthquakes generated on the San Andreas fault or
other active faults in the Bay Area.
Based on recent soil borings, the site could also be expected to be affected by
secondary earthquake hazards such as liquefaction. Liquefaction is a process in
which soils lose their supportive strength and become incapable of bearing the load
of overlying soils or structures. Liquefaction occurs during earthquakes in saturated,
relatively loose, sandy soils located within 50 feet of the ground surface. The
Kleinfelder report concludes that the site under a significant seismic event,
underlying sandy soils could liquefy resulting in settlement on the order of three
inches. On other portions of the site, dense sands or clayey materials would have
less of a tendency to liquefy, resulting in differential settlement on the site.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following standards of significance are used to assess potential environmental
impacts related to geological, landform and topographic issues of the proposed
project:
• Exposure of people and property to the risk of harm from geological hazards
and/or soil or seismic conditions;
• Presence of an Earthquake Safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Seismic -Study
Zone), an active fault or an area characterized by surface rupture that could be
related to fault activity;
• Increases over present levels of soil erosion.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Should the project be approved and implemented, the following environmental
impacts are anticipated: site grading and excavation, soil erosion and seismic risk.
These impacts would be applicable to both sub-areas.
Impact 4.1-1 (Site Grading and Excavationl: Approval of the proposed project
would cause increased amounts of site grading and excavation for construction of
the new facility. Grading operations would proceed based on grading and
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 16
City of South San Francisco April 1999
excavation plans approved by the City of South San Francisco and completed in
compliance with the Uniform Building Code(Less-than-significant impact).
Impact 4.1-2 (Soil Erosion): Increases in grading and excavation would increase
the potential for erosion of earthen material off of the site into local surface
bodies of water (Colma Creek), the storm drain system and into adjacent streets.
A major potential negative effect of soil erosion is degradation of local water
quality by depositing organic and inorganic material in local waters. The
significance of this impact is reduced through adherence to sedimentation and
erosion control plans and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan included in
the Notice of Intent (Less-than-significant impact).
As a condition of issuing grading permits, the City of South San Francisco requires
grading contractors to prepare and implement soil erosion and sedimentation plans.
These plans specify placement of silt fences, straw bales, revegetation of graded areas
and frequent cleaning of local streets during grading operations.
Impact 4.1-3 (Seismic Hazard: During a major earthquake on a segment of one of
the nearby faults, strong to very strong shaking is expected to occur at the project
site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure such as that
associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction.
Adherence to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code and specific
grading and building foundation recommendations made in the Kleinfelder
geotechnical report will reduce seismic impacts to ales-than-significant level
(Less-than-significant impact).
Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically
young faults. No Earthquake Fault Zones, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, are located on the project site; and no known active or
potentially active faults exist on the project area. In a seismically active area, the
remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously
existed; however, the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground
failure is low. Therefore, the risk of fault from a known active fault is considered
low.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 17
City of South San Francisco April 1999
4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Issues addressed in this section include potential impacts to existing land uses
within the project area, to land uses surrounding the project area and consistency of
the proposed project with regulatory plans and programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
EXISTING LAND USE
On-site land use
The project site was, until recently, occupied by a vacant concrete tilt-up building
which formerly housed a regional warehouse and distribution facility operated by
Macy's Department store chain. This building was recently demolished. On-site,
paved parking has also been constructed on the site as part of the closed Macy's
facility. A temporary construction facility to reprocess paving material presently
operates on the southerly portion of the site to provide construction materials for
the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) southeast of the project site.
Surrounding land use
Surrounding uses include a trailer park and recreational vehicle storage yard to the
north, Colma Creek and a cemetery to the east within the City of Colma and vacant
lands to the south. A new residential development is under construction to the
west, on the west side of El Camino Real, consisting of 174 single family dwellings
and 34 townhomes.
Regulatory Framework
Land use, development and redevelopment of property within this portion of the
community is governed by the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in 1986
and amended since the original adoption date. The General Plan land use
classification for the project site is Planned Commercial, which is intended to
promote retail commercial, offices and similar uses.
One of the primary methods of implementing the General Plan is through the City's
Zoning Ordinance, which regulates land use, building height and setbacks, parking
and other development standards in conformity with the General Plan. The South
San Francisco Zoning Map designates the project site as "P-C-L- Planned
Commercial," consistent with the General Plan designation. Permitted land uses
within this zoning district include civic uses, retail commercial, administrative and
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 18
City of South San Francisco April 1999
(City of Colma)
Planned
Commercial
N`cKEy g~VD
Retail
Commercial
/\
..
M
M
N
0
~~ GO
P ,G\5
~~~~
~~
J~
5~
EI Camino
High School
Low Density
Residential
Planned
Commercial
EL CgMINO REgL
Plann
Comme
Medium Density
Residential
Low '
Density
side` entlal
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, General Plan Land Use Diagram, Rev. 10/98
Exhibit 5
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONS
N
FfOj@Ct $It@
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
COSTCO PROJECT Nor o goo zoo 300 40o sao iooo peer
ro
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCALE
P-C-L
Y 0LV0
N~~KE
C-1
..
.;,
w
:.
UQ'~~~
~P~tP`'
GP /
( \ \
R-~=E
(City of Colma)
~~-GO
F , G\0
~~~~
~~
J~
50
EI Camino
High School
R-1-E
P-C-L \\~
(
EL CAMINO REAL
P-C-L
R-2-H
R-1-E \ / ~~E
SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, Zoning District Map, Rev. 9/98
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
COSTCO PROJECT
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 6
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
C-1 Retail Commercial
O-S Open Space
P-C-L Planned Commercial (30 units/acre)
R-1-E Single Family Residential (8 units/acre)
N R-2-H Medium Density Residential (15 units/acre)
Project Site
NOT 0 100 200 300--4-00 500 1000 /eet
ro
SCALE
business offices, food services and similar uses. Surrounding zoning designations
include "Planned Commercial" to the north and south of the project site and "R-2-
H, Medium Density Residential" west of the site. Properties east of the project site
are located within the City of Colma and are zoned a combination of "C-
Commercial" along the west side of Mission and "G-Memorial Park" along the east
side of Mission.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following criteria have been used to define instances of a significant land use
impact:
• if the proposed project is incompatible with on-site and/or adjacent land uses,
causing the potential for a substantial adverse change in the types or intensity
of existing land use patterns;
• if a proposed project is not consistent with adopted land use policies, or
would require a change in such policies in order to achieve consistency;
• if a proposed project would cause the conversion of prime agricultural soils
or disrupt existing agricultural operation;
• if a proposed project disrupts or divides the physical arrangement of an
established community.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential impacts include impacts to on-site land uses, impacts to adjacent or nearby
off-site land uses and consistency with appropriate regulatory plans.
Impact 4.2-1 (On-Site Land Use Impacts): Implementation of the project would
convert a closed and demolished warehouse building with a warehouse sales facility
and associated gasoline service station and associated retail commercial land uses.
Such development would be in accord with goals, policies and standards set forth in
the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Code and would be generally
consistent with the previous use on the site (less-than-significant impact).
Construction of the proposed facility would also result in Traffic and Transportation
impacts (see Section 4.3) and Air Quality Impacts (see Section 4.4).
Impact 4.2-2 (Surrounding Land Uses): Surrounding land uses include medium
density residential to the west, an older mobile home park to the north and
commercial uses to the south, all in the City of South San Francisco. The proposed
use of the project site for a warehouse sales facility would have less-than-significant
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 21
City of South San Francisco April 1999
impacts to these uses. Similarly, less-than-significant impacts are anticipated with
regard to the cemetery east of the site in the City of Colma since the cemetery is
separated from the proposed Costco facility by Colma Creek(Less-than-significant
impact).
Impact 4.2-3 (Reg_ulatory Impacts): Implementation of the proposed project be
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the South San Francisco General
Plan and permitted land uses and development standards contained in the Zoning
Code (No impact).
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 22
City of South San Francisco April 1999
4.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Traffic, parking and circulation issues include an analysis of additional vehicular
traffic associated with the proposed project, potential effects on local parking
demand and potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists.
(Note: the following section is a summary of a traffic impact analysis prepared for
this project by Rajappan and Meyers, a traffic and transportation consulting firm.
The complete text of the report is available in the office of the South San Francisco
Planning Division).
Environmental Setting
Regional access to the proposed Costco site is provided by a combination of freeway
and arterial streets. Interstate 280 is the primary freeway access to the site although it
provides indirect access west of the site. Access from I-280 is provided by on and off
ramps at Hickey Boulevard north of the project, and at Westborough Boulevard to
the south of the site. El Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard,
Mission Road and Junipero Serra Boulevard are the prime arterial streets providing
access to the site.
In the vicinity of the project site, Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard are
the primary east-west collectors providing access to and from I-280. Junipero Serra
Boulevard and El Camino Real are the primary north-south arterials. El Camino
Real (SR 82) currently provides direct access to the project site.
Interstate 280 in the proximity of the project site is an 8-lane freeway. It
extends in a north-south direction from US 101 in San Francisco to US 101 in
San Jose. Average daily traffic (ADT) on this section of the freeway is
approximately 166,000 vehicles.
El Camino Real (SR 82) in the proximity of the project site is a 6-lane arterial
and extends in a north-south direction. Street parking is permitted along the
east side of El Camino Real. Current average daily traffic (ADT) on this
section of El Camino Real is approximately 24,500 vehicles.
Intersections near the project site have been analyzed to determine traffic and
circulation impacts of the projects, since intersections are generally considered the
most critical factor in determining roadway capacity. The following intersections
were examined in the course of this study:
• El Camino Real/Mission Road
El Camino Real/ Arlington Drive
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 23
City of South San Francisco April 1999
• El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd.
• El Camino Real/Kaiser Permanente driveway
• El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive
• El Camino Real/Westborough-Chestnut
• Westborough Blvd./Orange/Camaratis
• Westborough Blvd. / Junipero Serra Blvd.
•Westborough Blvd./I-280 SB offramp
• Hickey Blvd. /I-280 SB offramp
• Hickey Blvd/I-280 NB offramp
• Hickey Blvd./Junipero Serra Blvd.
• Hickey Blvd. /Hilton Avenue
• Hickey Blvd./Camaritas Avenue
• Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue
• El Camino Real/Costco entrance/Midpeninsula
• El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd./McLean Drive
The Level of Service (LOS) concept has been used to perform intersection analyses.
This concept uses existing and expected average vehicle delays corresponding to an
"A" through "F" ratting scale, with LOS "A" representing free flow traffic with
minimal or no delays at intersections and LOS "F" to describe heavy congestion
with significant delays at intersections. For purposes of this environmental
document, LOS D is used as the standard of environmental significance for
signalized intersections and LOS E is used as the standard for unsignalized
intersections
Table 1, below, summarizes existing traffic conditions at study intersections without
the proposed project.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 24
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Table 1. Existing Intersection Level of Service
Avg. Avg.
Intersection LOS Delay Crit. Crit
(sec.) V/C -Delay
(sec.)
El Camino Real/Mission F 103.0 * *
Road
El Camino Real/ Arlington F 94.9 * *
Drive
El Camino Real/Hicke Blvd. C 17.0 0.58 20.9
El Camino Real/Kaiser B 11.7 0.46 12.7
Permanente drivewa
El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive C 18.3 0.62 22.7
El Camino F 62.1 1.09 83.6
Real/Westborou h-Chestnut
Westborough D 28.2 0.84 31.7
Blvd./Oran a/Camaratis
Westborough Blvd. / Junipero D 27.4 0.70 29.3
Serra Blvd.
Westborough Blvd./I-280 SB B 8.1 0.75 9.6
offram
Hickey Blvd. /I-280 SB C 21.8 0.87 30.8
offram
Hickey Blvd/I-280 NB D 32.0 0.92 40.0
offram
Hickey Blvd./Junipero Serra C 24.0 0.55 26.9
Blvd.
Hicke Blvd. /Hilton Ave. F 19.1
Hickey Blvd./Camaritas F XX * *
Avenue
Grand Ave. /Mission Blvd. C 11.7 1.11 6.3
Grand Avenue/Chestnut D 26.8 0.77 28.7
Avenue
El Camino Real/Costco -- -- -- --
entrance/Mid eninsula
El Camino Real/Hickey -- -- -- --
Blvd./McLean Drive
Source: Rajappan & Meyer
Notes
LOS= Level of Service for signalized intersections
V/C= volume to capacity ratio for unsignalized intersections
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 25
City of South San Francisco April 1999
*=not available
=future intersection
XX=delay exceeds limit
Based on Table 6, the following intersections are presently (before construction of
the proposed project) operating at unacceptable levels of service:
• El Camino Real/Westborough Blvd./Chestnut Avenue (LOS F during PM
peak hour);
• El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS F during PM peak hour);
• El Camino Real/Arlington Drive (LOS F during PM peak hour);
• Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS F during the PM peak hour);
• Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS F during PM peak hour).
Two Congestion Management Plan (CMP) roadway segments are located in the
project vicinity, State Route 82 between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough
Boulevard and I-280 between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard.
The I-280 segment between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is
operating at level of service F. The CMP level of service standard for this segment is
LOS "E." According to the CMP guidelines, the 1997 reported LOS for this segment is
LOS "F" without exemptions and LOS "A" with exemptions. LOS " A" is based upon
the exclusion of interregional trips that do not originate from the vicinity of the
segment or local jurisdiction. The exclusion is determined by C/CAG based on the
biennial monitoring. If the LOS standard is met with the exclusion as determined by
C/CAG, a deficiency plan is not required.
El Camino Real between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard operates at
an acceptable Level of Service B.
The Background Condition describes the scenario wherein approved project trips
are added to existing traffic counts. The impacts of a project are then determined by
comparing the project and background conditions. Therefore, traffic volumes for
background conditions include volumes from existing traffic counts, plus traffic
generated by approved but not yet constructed projects. A list of the approved
projects was obtained from the City of South San Francisco and is described below.
The trip generation associated with these approved projects was obtained from the
traffic reports.
• Promenade Residential Subdivision
• Mid Peninsula Housing Subdivision and Alta Loma Park
• Chestnut Estates Subdivision
• Mini-Mart addition to an Existing Fast Food Service
• Southpark Residential
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 26
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Background condition traffic volumes at study intersections were obtained by
adding the estimated traffic generated from approved projects to the existing traffic
volumes. Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the
operating levels at the study intersections under background conditions. Table
2shows the Background Condition level of service summary. The LOS for all study
intersections would remain similar to the existing conditions.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 27
City of South San Francisco April 1999
h
0
U'
~ ~
u E
.~ 3
as ~
C/~
W V
O ~
~ ~
O
a
b J
^^4 c
O
.''~i Y
~ ~
~ m
N
H
~
~'
0 0 0 v M
N *-~ N~ M N .~ M A N
N
Z
O
~.,
~
±+ U O U'1 (~ .-~ 00 M LA lA O 00 ~O M O~
M M M ~ to +-~ tp 10 M t!'1 .-~ .~ ~
'
jt ~F
Z :4 ~
V M
,-~ 00
* * ~O ~ t0 •-~ 00 f~ 1~ 00 O~ l11
~ O O O +~+ O O O O O O +~-~ O O
U
Z
~ ~ q~~ (ma
,) 00 O Lf1 O- N M ~D t0 ~ 0~ I~ .~ ^ OD M ~
~ y
Q ~ .-~ .-i .-1 1~ N N O N M N N ~ N ~
M
v ~
y
v
m
O wwumUu.ppmv~uLLwUO ~ m
J
~ ~i '^ Q~ 1~ 1~ tD 1~ M ~ CO O O? ~,.~ f~
Q U A" N .ti N CO M N~ M~ N ~ N
z
~
~+U O+ T tp M ~' .~ Ln O lfl OD O+
~~n.-~aovo~n~oNt O~c
io
o
~
z .-
ooooo
oco•
O
Z+
! g1 tq~,~! 0 O~ O N M *-~ N C ,,,,~ OD O O ~ I~ 00
1 1
~
~
~
^
r Q O ~ -~ N
-~
.
-~ •~ ~ t0 N N~ N M N .
O T ,
(~
o--~
x
l1J
o ~~umU~oomUOU~~.UO ,
J
.v
~ a ~ p
m
;gy
~ as '~ ~
~,~~~EE aJ
E ~o~c~>_ ~ ~ u
~
z
~ ~~ m ~ p m+ c ~
c
+~ a~ ~~~ v v w d
t
~ c
~
~~ ~Q ~ ~C~
~
=
~
~•
m~
a '~ w an v a~ ~o
o
OD
`
~
w ~~E~
On~pp
OQ
~~Qc>
w
m
•~a
~a~ ~
p
Z
~
p
aiSdSdf
0 ~c
0p
Q
E
O C
c ~
~ 01
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ N
J ~
1
0
~+ ~
N
A
G
C
-ai~a`3 ~ ~ ~o~asasasa~~~c`~i
0~J 0~! N W GJ N L L L ~j ~j N N G>1 7 7 N 4~7
'
~ O' d' d' ~ D1 Of O~ . . . C C ~ a
~~
~
C C C C C C~
~ m m>> C C
m
•
a¢'-•-
•
•
~
E
E
E
E
E
C C E
E
~~ >.>.>~>.
~
~
r
p
f
p 1
p f
p
,y
Y Y Y
V V V V V Y
~ V
d U U U lJ U~ R
wwwww333=x===c7c9ww
+-~ N M ~ 1A 10 1~ 00 01 O •~ N M ~ t!1 tp I~ O
.r rl .r .r .~ .-~ ~ .~ .-1
V
C
~, ..
w ~
c
1y° e
^ W
O L r
~ ~"
i
~ ~
C
~' 1°a
~ a
~ ~o
~ III
v
~o
.;
O
Z
_o
i
c
c
.~
C
Again, many but not all of the study intersections are anticipated to operate at
satisfactory levels under both existing and future conditions, without the proposed
project. Exceptions include:
• El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS B PM peak
hour);
• El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS F PM peak hour)
• El Camino Real/Arlington Drive (LOS F during the PM peak hour)
• Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS F PM peak hour);
• Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS F PM peak hour).
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A transportation or parking impact would be significant if:
• if signalized intersection operations fall below a Level of Service of D or
worse during peak hours of the day and if unsignalized operations fall
below LOS E during peak hours of the day;
• if traffic volumes at unsignalized intersections increase above Caltrans
peak hour signal warrants;
• if traffic volumes increase by more than 2% at intersections currently
operating at unacceptable levels;
• if there would be a substantial, demonstrable reduction in on- or off-street
parking.
• if barriers would be created to pedestrian, bicycle or public transportation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Roadway network
To determine traffic impacts of the proposed project, peak hour trip generation from
the proposed project was calculated based on standard generation rates published by
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE, Sixth Edition), including information gathered
from similar Costco facilities. Peak hour trips were then distributed to local and
regional streets based on consultations with City of South San Francisco staff. Refer
to the full Traffic Analysis for details of anticipated trip generation and distribution.
Near term traffic conditions
Project trips were added to the Background Condition traffic to create the Project
Condition forecasts. The levels of service for the study intersections under the Near-
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 29
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Term project conditions are provided in Table 3. The following intersections are
projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service:
• El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue
(LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
• El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS "F" during the PM peak
hour);
• El Camino Real/Arlington Drive (LOS "F" during the PM peak
hour);
• Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM
peak hour);
• Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak
hour).
Impact 4.3-1 (Near-Term Roadway Impacts)• Significant traffic impacts are
anticipated at the following study area intersections:
• El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS "F"
during the PM peak hour);
• El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
• El Camino ReaUArlington Drive (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
• Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
• Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour).
(Significant impacts and mitigation measures are required).
These intersections are operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour. They are
projected to operate at LOS F in the background condition, without the addition of
project traffic. However, the addition of project traffic would increase traffic and
associated delays by 2% or greater, resulting in a significant traffic impact.
All other study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service
(LOS "D" or better). The LOS calculations for the near-term project conditions are
provided in the Traffic Report Appendix.
Mitieation Measure 4 3-1 (Near-Term Roadway Impacts)• The project developer
shall provide a fair share financial contribution to the above intersections to fund
necessary traffic signalization and roadway improvements to reduce potential
impacts to aless-than-significant level. The amount and timing of improvements
shall be determined by the South San Francisco Public Works Department.
Intersection operations would improve to LOS "D" at the above intersections.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 30
City of South San Francisco April 1999
u
...
ail
0
a
a
0
V
H
Q
wry
1.1
{~1
F
r.
z
F
p
~ ~p pp O~ N
H m M ~ O
1/)
A
p
J m m O m m
m
Y Y N n n ~ N m N A W VI ~ m P1, N
i i ry .y N M M O C N V1 1~ i i ~ ti V1 ~
< U p V1 N~ N ti M M~ M Q N M~
y4
VI
~ V '+ O V1 N ~••~ O O~ pNq~ ~l~~pp O m O~ ~ n
i i n 1N/1 b N~ n n m O~ ~O • i ti m n~
C 67 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~+ O O O
~
~ ~'! ~ ti n O N w1 N .~ O Vf V1 V1 O AI ti
V <~ N N ti '~ '~ .~r N N m N M N N ti N ~~
Z'i
d
~
a ~f
p
~
IV IL U m V Y. p p m U O p ~+- ~ U p m m
s
< ~ ~ ~p ~p 1~ N
~ m
A
.~
f O
J m m O m m
~~ ~ y
` N C H n m T f~ N ~O P1 C ry W n N
M
ti M C N i i O M H M
i i N
O~
N ti
p P
1 I
f
A
$
g
'J
a
~~ M ~o V7 O~ 1~ m po. M o 10 O~ m
i • n Vf b w m n n 00 a b i i .~i m ~ M
V~ G C C C C O O O G ~+ G O O
4
p
~~ O~ !~
O 1~ O ~+ N .~ N O ~O P'2 N ~ O n1 ,y
H N N~
M
~ T ~ ti ~ a N N O N M N
U < 1
f1
N
_
ti ~ V m V 1L p p m U p O LL ti V O m m
~
~ x ~
~ T O~ f~ ~ M T O m O .~ P 7 N
i • ..i
N ti fV O~ O O ti ri i • ~ O ~ T
~
C <
~+ ~ .
i
M N ~ M P N M
N N ~y
~
C U
~ m
n07 M M w N~ w ~O ~O M {m/1 H w
•
M
• i
U U 7 w
CD
~p T ~O OD 1~ n m O; V1
G O O '+ C G G O O C .~ C G
9
g_g11
O H m C N O~ N P1 40 ~O m n r1 n m M
N m N
N N ~ ti N ~
~ ~
^
O
n n
A .
-' .
i
N
M
.r .•i
m
p
1L 1L U m U~ p p m U p U~ LL U p m
<
~~ a n n .o n en ,o m o m M ~
i i N ti N m
N ~ M P N i i ~
,
(,
O N
M
C O~ O~ ~ M T ~ N O N m ~
• • h V ~O OPD f~ INS
m ~ N • ~ n '
,
O O G ~+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~+ O
01 q_y1 ~y1 O O~ O 1~ M .+ N C „y OD O O .r ~ n m
1~ .~ m N m 1~ ~ ri fV Q T ~ 10 '
O
O VI ~
~~~~ N N N M N .+ N
LL1
t~
O
J IL 4. U m V tL O O m 0 0 0~~ U p
d M Q
~
qcq
~ E E
3
d
~
~
~
qC
~
~ °
a
~
~
'
t
;
~
~
t
'° t gg8~~,~'c=< ~ ~~
N a
m
<
va Q
:~ ~ < ~ m
v~ _
~ ~ ~ C .'
.e .e .a
~ ~
~
~
~ E
c
T v v ~ CC y
N C A x
E A N
N
~
r
.~
~
S Y
~ ~ ~tl rI if .1! ~tl ~ ~ c3 s
3
qq ,O ~ A A
Y L L L ~
~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~
Y
Y
Y
OC Y
Oo
44
Q
q
Q
~ Q ' ~
~ ~ ~ < ~
.~
m
.s
t S i Se
i
~
~ ~
q
q
~i ~ ~ ~ ~ C C U U
'
A
U U CJ U
-y
u'f u'i {~- 4! 41 W 3 3 3 S _ _ _ _ ~ ~ W W
.+ N M P N ~O. 1~ m O~ w .~~+ .Ni .Mi w~ ~ ~ m
~x
C
A
cg
i
C
a
W
•~Q
L
O
u
C
0
w
a
CMP roadway segments
As shown, under the Near-Term Project Condition, the I-280 segment between
Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is projected to operate at an
unacceptable level of service F. The CMP level of service standard for this segment is
LOS "E". According to the CMP guidelines, the 1997 reported LOS for this segment is
LOS "F" without exemptions and LOS "A" with exemptions. By adding the
background and the project traffic the LOS would remain "F." The project would add
more traffic to the already deficient roadway segment that would further increase
congestion and travel delay. C/CAG requires the local jurisdiction to prepare a
deficiency plan if the C/CAG biennial monitoring discovers that the standard has
degraded from LOS "E" to LOS "F" after certain exclusions are taken from traffic
counts such as interregional travel, traffic from freeway ramp metering, traffic from
very low income housing, and others. The 1997 LOS "A" with exemptions is based
upon the exclusion of interregional trips that do not originate from the vicinity of
the segment or local jurisdiction. Based on the 1997 LOS monitoring report, it is
possible that the C/CAG would determine that the LOS criteria for this segment with
exclusions would be "A" or "B" and deficiency plan would not be required.
El Camino Real between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is
projected to operate at an .acceptable Level of Service B with the addition of project
traffic.
Impact 4 3-2 (Near-Term CMP Roadway Impacts): With appropriate exemptions
granted by C/CAG, less-than-significant impacts would be expected along nearby
freeway segments (less-than-significant impact)
Long-term (Year 2010) analysis scenario
For the long-term condition, the analysis identifies two scenarios:
• Background Condition plus BART Traffic
• Background Condition plus BART Traffic plus Project Traffic
The long-term background condition, with BART traffic was created based on the
following steps:
1) Year 2010 forecasted traffic volumes were provided by BART at El Camino
Real & Hickey Boulevard Ext. /McLellan Drive and El Camino Real & New
BART Access 1. These volumes are based on the "BART/SFO Extension
Technical Memorandum on Traffic at the South San Francisco BART Station,
October 29,1998."
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 32
City of South San Francisco April 1999
d
V
.~
a
W
~ O
~ E
E
~+ m
Y
V
a
-..
A~ Y
~~I, MF
[''' O
dE ~
~" e
o s
a
L~
l^
C
O
A Sp, ~l (y1
a O V1 O n O P N n
.wn ^ 1~1 1'NI ^ N
f Q m m Q O m ~
m ~ r~r~~ lZt {~~1
V u VI m N m N O N w N N ~O ~ N ~'1 P Y1
f f m~ YI O
O
f M ~ w
N N r
~ N IM~
^r N IP'
= Q .
i
f .
f •
~ooo
oo ~ooo
000
o
}};;
O di ry N ~D 1~ P ~O O m M P P m P N M ~D m
~ Si n ~ ^ ~ r n .P. n n rNiN. ~ m n ~
~ ~ LL LL U m m W O O m 0 0 0 LL LL U LL U U m
a ~ ~ o ^ ~n ~o N ~.
~ n ~ ^ r
S ~ m m O O m O
O p~ ~1 (V~
Q ~ O VI m N m O~ O. w m r p~ O_ m N ~+ m Y1
O
f m~ ti
f f
'
Ni ~ b
1M.
N.. N wm1 f
N
1
f .
f .
N
~ p
~
p
gp
pp
p
• • CO ~ ~ ~ ~ OD a 07 P P • • ~ ~ ~ ~ P
C
G G C C w G G O O O O ~+ w G G G
~
~ ~j yy
Q m O 1~ n O~ P w f N P ~D ~0.7~ N ~D
Imff ~ N ~ ^ N N
N
0
~ ~ ~
N
P
~ N ~
1
O
V 1'f .
f
'f
.
+ 10
•.
~ ~1
1
p
J LL LL U m m W O O m U 0 0 LL LL U LL m U m
~ yy
d U O~ N P f N ~D O ~O ~O f~ N1 n (PryV1 O ~D
• f ~ w .wi ~ N w1 .wi N~ PM1 • f ^ m N ti
• M I~ fP~f f O~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ • • ~ O ' YI
G C C C C C C G G C C C
g yy y~1
O Vf pO~ n O~ 1D N Y1 N O~ o w Q1 m^ 1D o M N
O
m w m O N N~ .fir N N~~ .M+ ~ 1 .~+ ~
P
P
1~n[
O
J LL LL U m m W O O m 0 0 0 LL LL U LL U m
p~ ~
> ~ ~
~ U a n n ~o n a ,o m o a n n
• O ~ N Pf P O G ~D • s' m . .
N N m wf N P wf T N ~ N
~ o00 ~oooooa .:o
~j G O. O 1~ M w N P r m O O w xx I~ OD
~G .
m ^ 07 .. N f w x
O ~
w
n
YI w
... w
.
~p
N N N PI N X N
N
O
J
LL LL U m U LL O O m 0 0 0 LL LL U 0
A
Q
w
E
~
~ ;
R
6
VC
C £
O
V
I ~ O
+
+
~
\
~ Y ? ~ Y
~
~ ~ `
~
V ~ ~ ~
~
~ ` C 2
N ~
~ a a a~~~~ W m~
E N N
i z
~
w x
~ a a a a a
~
a a a a a e o a a a
t' a a
~~
~
r
~ ~ ~
g
~
oe a
c
a
c
ac
gg g gg~
~
U° ~ ~
3
N P1 f w 10 I~ m O~ ~ .y . ~ .P. .Ni .m. .n. w O,
B
a
.~
c
L~
O
C
O
01
C
~p
U
C
wa
w°
awe
Table 4. Long-Term Level of Service Summary
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 33
City of South San Francisco April 1999
2) Turning movement percentages were calculated based on the BART Airport
Extension EIR (Appendix A, BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project,
September 1994) at El Camino Real &Westborough/Chestnut, El Camino
Real & Hickey Boulevard, Westborough & Junipero Serra Boulevard, Grand
Avenue & Chestnut Avenue, Grand Avenue & Mission Road.
3) Existing minor street volumes were increased to year 2010 by using growth
rate of 0.5%/annum.
4) Year 2010 traffic volumes at El Camino Real & Hickey Boulevard
Ext./McLellan Drive and El Camino Real & New BART Access 1 volumes
were carried over to the study intersections using BART EIR turning
movement percentages.
Project traffic was added to the long-term background condition traffic to create the
long-term project condition. The levels of service for the study intersections under
the long-term project condition scenarios are shown in Table 4. As shown, the level
of service at the intersection of El Camino Real/Westborough Blvd.-Chestnut would
improve from LOS "F" to "E." This would be due to the significant reduction in
southbound left turn movements at El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard
caused by the new connection of Hickey Blvd. Extension between El Camino Real
and Mission Road. There would also be some trip reduction along El Camino Real
due to diversion of commute traffic to the BART stations between Colma and the
airport.
Impact 4.3-3 (Long-Term Roadway Impacts): The following intersections are
projected to operate at unacceptable level of service with and without the addition
of project traffic, since the proposed project would add 2% or greater traffic to these
roadways:
• El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS "E"
during the PM peak hour);
• El Camino ReaUMission Road (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
• El Camino ReaUArlington Drive (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
• Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak
hour);
• Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
• Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour).
~ (significant impact)
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 34
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (long-term roadway impacts): The following traffic and
roadway improvements shall be installed as part of project construction. The
proposed Costco facility shall be responsible for a fair share of the improvements
listed below.
• Add an additional left-turn lane only for the north leg of the intersection and
add an exclusive right-turn lane on the east leg of the intersection.. The LOS
will improve to "D" during the PM peak hour;
• Upgrade the signal at the Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue intersection for a
left-turn protected phase, and re-stripe eastbound and westbound Chestnut
Avenue to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, and a shared through and
right-turn lane. LOS will improve to D during the evening peak hour.
CMP roadway segments
Under the Long-term Project Condition, the I-280 segment between Hickey
Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is projected to operate at an unacceptable
level of service F. The CMP level of service standard for this segment is LOS "E".
According to the CMP guidelines, the 1997 reported LOS for this segment is LOS "F"
without exemptions and LOS "A" with exemptions. By adding the background and
the project traffic, the LOS would remain "F."
The project would add more traffic to the already deficient roadway segment that
would further increase congestion and travel delay. C/CAG requires the local
jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan if the C/CAG biennial monitoring discovers
that the standard has degraded from LOS "E" to LOS "F," after certain exclusions are
taken from traffic counts such as interregional travel, traffic from freeway ramp
metering, traffic from very low income housing, and others. The 1997 LOS "A", with
exemptions, is based upon the exclusion of interregional trips that do not originate
from the vicinity of the segment or local jurisdiction. Based on the 1997 LOS
monitoring report, it is possible that the C/CAG would determine that the LOS
criteria for this segment with exclusions would be "A" or "B", and a deficiency plan
would not be required.
El Camino Real between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is projected
to operate at an acceptable Level of Service B.
Imvact 4.3-4 (Long-Term CMP Roadway Impacts): With appropriate exemptions
granted by C/CAG, less-than-significant impacts would be expected along nearby
freeway segments under long-term conditions (less-than-significant impact).
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 35
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 (Long-Term CMP Roadway Impacts): Prepare a CMP
Deficiency Plan for I-280 between the Hickey and Westborough interchanges unless
the C/CAG determines that the LOS criteria for the segment with exclusions would
be LOS "A" or "B" and a deficiency plan would not be required.
Adherence to the above mitigation measure would reduce CMP roadway impacts to
a level of less-than-significant.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 36
City of South San Francisco April 1999
4.4 AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
This EIR section describes the impacts of the proposed project on local and regional
air quality.
[Note: The information contained in this section is based on an air quality analysis
prepared by Donald Ballanti, Certified Meteorologist. The full text of this report is
available in the South San Francisco Planning Division].
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Air Pollution Climatology
The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of
pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant.
The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability,
terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the
orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula.
Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying
pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the average in fall and winter.
Pollutants can be diluted by mixing in the atmosphere both vertically and
horizontally. Vertical mixing and dilution of pollutants is often suppressed by
inversion conditions, when a warm layer of air traps cooler air close to the surface.
During the summer, inversions are generally elevated above ground level, but are
present over 90 percent of the time in both the morning and afternoon. In winter,
surface-based inversions dominate in the morning hours, but frequently dissipate by
afternoon.
The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for
air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when
winds are very light and local pollutants can build up.
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources
Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These
ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels
that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The
ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the
health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 5
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 37
City of South San Francisco April 1999
identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical
sources.
The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in
Table 6 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were
developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both
processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state
standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more
stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM10.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently announced new national
air quality standards for ground-level ozone and for fine Particulate Matter. The
existing 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 PPM will be phased out and replaced by an 8-
hour standard of 0.08 PPM. New national standards for fine Particulate Matter
(diameter 2.5 microns or less) have also been established for 24-hour and annual
averaging periods. Although currently in effect, the planning process to determine
compliance with these new standards and the development of control programs to
meet these standards, if needed, will not be complete until after the year 2000.
Ambient Air Quality
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at
several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The monitoring sites
closest to the project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City
to the south. Table 7 summarizes exceedances of State and Federal standards at these
two sites.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 38
City of South San Francisco April 1999
~+
U
a
0
a
::
ads
H
~
~ ~ vi
~ t0v °~
n.~ Wv
o
c
~
~ ~ ,s
~~
~
~~
o~
~
~°
~
~yp
$
v
~~
c
mymt0 a
E ~ i ~
~,~ o_a ~~
w gy~~ o~~
~ ~'S L
$ _m
~ a~o
~c ~ ~
;
W~
~~
~ ~
~
~ ~S
nW
~ a W W-
~
a $
E ~~ ~~ o
E~ ~
~ ~ a ~ ~~
v
~e ~ ~~ m ~ 3 ~ O ~~' ~t
m
~ ~
`
~
E
f a
~
tT ~
r
m
E c
o
~
a
~ '~~ ~
~ f
~
~ ~ c
y
o ~
~~
~
~
Zai o
o ~
~ ~
~~
o ~ ~f ~
C ~ C
~ p a
Yp ~ fT 's
~' ~ ff
W ~
~ c.
g~ ~ ..
~
~ ~
~
~_
a~ c
~
_ .. ..~..~.8 . ~ .~. .t
5 m
m~ a ~
~~ ~
~ ~°
~ -~ ~ ~
~.
~ 8~s °°
~
. ~$ 8
~ .~~ ~ °~
's
p
8 8~
'~
O ~ n
~ m L m
Wt~i ~ ~
~~
$ ~ c~
°~
~ .
~i `~
~
L '~~~
~{ ~ ~~
~$
~ ~
, h ~
~~ ~
o
W
a
~ aS
~~~~ ~ ~
~ ~8 ~
~
. a
c . ,
c
m ~
x
o
o
~
O
off. ~ U~ ~
zG ~ a
Table 6. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Tlme Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.08 PPM -
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 PPM -
1-Hour - 0.25 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 PPM -
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM
1-Hour - 0.5 PPM
PM,o Annual 50 Ng/m3 30 Ng/m3
24-Hour 150 pg/rn3 50 Ng/m3
PM25 Annual 15 Ng/m' --
24-Hour 65 /m3 -
Lead 30-Day Avg. - 1.5 Ng/m3
Month Avg. 1.5 m3 -
PPM =Parts per Million
Ng/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Table 7. Summary of Air Quality Data: San Francisco and Redwood City
Pollutant Standard Monitoring Days Exceeding Standard in:
Site 1995 1996 1997
Ozone Federal 1- San Francisco 0 0 0
Hour Redwood C' 1 0 0
Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0
Redwood Ci 5 1 0
Carbon State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0
Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0
PM,o Federa124- San Francisco 0 0 0
Hour Redwood Ci 0 0 0
PM,o State 24- San Francisco 0 2 0
Hour Redwood Ci 0 0 2
Table 7 shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the project
area with the exception of ozone and PM10. Prior to 1992, violations of the carbon
monoxide standards were also recorded within the air basin.
Of the three pollutants known to at times exceed the state and federal standards in
the project area, two are regional pollutants. Both ozone and PM-10 are considered
regional pollutants in that concentrations are not determined by proximity to
individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Thus, the data
shown in Table 7 for ozone and PM10 provide a good characterization of levels of
these pollutants on the project site.
Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant, i.e., high concentrations are normally only
found near sources. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless,
poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually
only found near areas of high traffic volumes.
The data shown in Table 7 for carbon monoxide are not necessarily representative of
concentrations that would be found near the proposed project site. Consequently,
concentrations of carbon monoxide have been estimated using a computer
simulation model that predicts concentrations based on information on roadway
locations, traffic volumes and traffic conditions.
Attainment Status and Regional Air Quality Plans
The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the
State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions
of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as
"non-attainment areas". Because of the differences between the national and state
standards, the designation of non-attainment areas is different under the federal and
state legislation.
The Bay Area currently has attained all federal standards. However, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has proposed reclassifying the Bay Area from
"maintenance area" to non-attainment for ozone based on recent violations of the
federal standards at several locations in the air basin. This would reverse the air
basin's reclassification to "maintenance area" for ozone in 1995. Reclassification
would require an update to the region's federal air quality plan.
Recent revisions to the national ambient standards for ozone and particulate matter
have no immediate effect on federal non-attainment planning. Existing ozone and
particulate matter designations will remain in effect until U.S.E.P.A establishes new
designations based on data from 1997, 1998 and 1999. No new controls will be
required with respect to the new standards until after the year 2002.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 42
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Under the California Clean Air Act, San Mateo County is anon-attainment area for
ozone and PM10. The County is either attainment or unclassified for other
pollutants.
The California Clean Air Act requires local air pollution control districts to prepare
air quality attainment plans. These plans must provide for district-wide emission
reductions of five percent per year averaged over consecutive three-year periods or
if not, provide for adoption of "all feasible measures on an expeditious schedule."
The Act also grants air districts explicit statutory authority to adopt indirect source
regulations and transportation control measures, including measures to encourage
or require the use of ridesharing, flexible work hours or other measures which
reduce the number or length of vehicle trips.
Sensitive Receptors
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as
facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the
acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be found. These land uses include
residences, schools playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent
homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Sensitive receptors near the project site would
include residences north and south of the site and Kaiser Hospital southeast the site.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Current CEQA Guidelines provide that a project would have a significant air quality
impact: if would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air plan.
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard.
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
CEQA Guidelines provide that, when available the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make determinations of significance. The BAAQMD has
established the following impact criteria.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 43
City of South San Francisco April 1999
• A significant impact on local air quality is defined as an increase in carbon
monoxide concentrations that causes a violation of the most stringent
ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide (20 ppm for the one-hour
averaging period, 9.0 ppm for the eight-hour averaging period).
A significant impact on regional air quality fora "local plan", such as a
redevelopment plan, is defined as inconsistency between the local plan, and
the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP).
According to the BAAQMD, the following criteria must be satisfied for a local plan
to be determined to be consistent with the CAP and not have a significant air quality
impact:
• The local plan should be consistent with the CAP Population and VMT
assumptions. This is demonstrated if the population growth over the
planning period will not exceed the values included in the current CAP.
• The local plan demonstrates reasonable efforts to implement the
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) included in the CAP that identify
cities as implementing agencies.
The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts is based on the
appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide
feasible control measures for construction emission of PM lo. If the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less-than-significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Three potential air quality impacts are identified in this Initial Study: short term
construction impacts, long term operational impacts and regional impacts.
Short Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations,
construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate
exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local
and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas
emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-waterbase paints, thinners, some insulating
materials and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would
participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in
paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application.
Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction
of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates
a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the
atmosphere.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 44
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Impact 4.4-1 (construction impacts): The effects of project construction activities
would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of
construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at
nearby properties (potentially significant impact).
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 (construction impacts): The following measures are
recommended, based on BAAQMD standards, to reduce construction impacts to a
level that is less-than-significant. The following construction practices should be
required during all phases of construction on the project site:
• Water all active construction areas as weeded;
• Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that
can be blown by the wind;
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites;
• Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking
areas and staging areas at construction sites;
• Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets;
• Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas;
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to
public roadways;
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Local impacts
On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network,
changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon
monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay
Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of
major roads.
The CALINE-4 computer simulation model was applied to five intersections near
the project site. Model runs were made for existing traffic conditions and with the
background and project traffic increases. The intersections modeled were selected
using the BAAQMD criteria for modeling, i.e., Level of Service D, E, or F. The
model results were used to predict the maximum 1-and 8-hour concentrations,
corresponding to the 1- and 8-hour averaging times specified in the state and federal
ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. The CALINE-4 model and the
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 45
City of South San Francisco April 1999
assumptions made in its use for this project are described in Attachment 1 of the
complete air quality analysis.
Table 8 shows the results of the CALINE-4 analysis for the peak 1-hour and 8-hour
traffic periods in parts per million (PPM). The 1-hour values are to be compared
with the federal 1-hour standard of 35 PPM and the state standard of 20 PPM. The 8-
hour values in Table 8 are to be compared with the state and federal standard of 9
PPM.
Table 8 shows that concentrations are predicted not to exceed the ambient standards
with or without the proposed project. The additional project traffic would increase
carbon monoxide concentrations by no more than 0.4 Parts Per Million at any of the
intersections analyzed. Project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations
are considered less-than-significant.
Impact 4.4-2 (local air quality impacts): Incremental increases in air pollution could
be anticipated with the construction of the proposed project, however, such
increases would be below the standard of air quality significance as established by the
BAAQMD (less-than-significant impact).
Permanent regional impacts
Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions
affecting the entire San Francisco Bay air basin. Regional emissions associated with
project vehicle use has been calculated using the URBEMIS7G emission program.
The methodology used in estimating vehicular emissions is described in
Attachment 2 contained in the complete text of the traffic analysis.
The incremental daily emission increase associated with the project is identified in
Table 9 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone)
and PM10•
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 46
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Table 8. Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Near Selected Intersections
Intersection Existing Background Background Background
+ Scen. A 1- +Scen. B
1-Hr 8-Hr, 1-Hr 8-Hr Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr
Westborough/ 12.6 8.3 12.9 8.5 13.0 8.6 13.0 8.6
Chestnut/El Camino
Camaritas/Orange/ 9.7 6.2 9.7 6.3 10.0 6.4 10.0 6.4
Westborough
Junipero Serra/ 9.5 6.1 9.6 6.1 9.7 6.2 9.7 6.3
Westborough
I-280 NB Offramp / 10.5 6.8 10.6 6.9 11.0 7.1 11.0 7.2
Imperial/Hickey
Grand / 7.4 4.7 7.5 4.7 7.6 4.8 7.6 4.8
Chestnut
Most Stringent 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0
Standard
Source: Donald Ballanti
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established threshold of
significance for ozone precursors and PM10 of 80 pounds per day. Project-related
emissions from vehicles are well above these thresholds of significance for ozone
precursors, so project impacts on regional air quality would be significant.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 47
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Table 9. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day
Reactive Nitrogen PM10
Organic Oxides
Gases
Project Scenario A 92.4 163.9 52.1
Project Scenario B 104.4 183.0 58.1
BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0
Threshold
Source: Donald Ballanti
Impact 4.4-3 (permanent regional air quality impacts :Construction of the proposed
project would exceed the maximum BAAQMD air quality standards for permanent
regional impacts (significant impact).
The location and character of the proposed project limits the potential for reducing
regional air quality impacts. The traffic mitigation measures identified in the traffic
impact analysis for the project identifies roadway and intersection improvements
that would avoid congestion and would, in turn, result in a small reduction in air
emissions.
Available air quality mitigation strategies for commercial development focus on
work trips, which comprise a very small fraction of total project trips, and thus
would not be effective. The big-box discount character of the project also makes
impractical any strategies to have patrons use transit, walk or bicycle to the proposed
facility. Parking restrictions are impractical unless imposed regionally, and have the
potential to impact adjacent neighborhoods.
Mixed land-use strategies are employed in Scenario B. Close proximity of the Costco
facility and a shopping center has been assumed to reduce trip generation from these
two land uses by 10%. This reduction is already reflected in Table 14, and no further
reduction can be assumed.
In summary, there are no effective and feasible mitigation measures that can reduce
project impacts for either Scenario A or B to a level that is below the BAAQMD's
significance thresholds. Project impacts on regional air quality would be significant
and unavoidable.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 48
City of South San Francisco April 1999
4.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
This section of the EIR deals with potential soil, groundwater and structural
contamination.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site was used for storage and distribution of goods for the Macy's
department store chain. The warehouse building was constructed in the late-1960's.
As part of the project, the existing building is slated for demolition and removal.
construction equipment storage and maintenance for a number of years.
Surface and subsurface soil investigations were recently conducted the firms of
Krazan and Associates and Kleinfelder, Inc. The purpose of the analyses was to
determine if significant levels of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials are
present on the site. The Kleinfelder Inc. Report, entitled "Environmental
Investigation Report, Former Macy's El Camino Center, 1556 El Camino Real, South
San Francisco" completed November 25, 1997, is available for review at the South
San Francisco Planning Division office during normal business hours
The environmental site analyses identified the presence of TRPH (Total
Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons), TPH-d (Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons,
Diesel) and TPH-mo (Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons) within site soils and within
groundwater under the site. These are attributable to previous railroad and trucking
operations on the site. Although a vehicle fueling station was previously located on
the site, no evidence of a leaking underground fuel tank were found by the
environmental investigators.
Under the auspices of a site remediation plan approved by the San Mateo County
Health Services Agency (1993), contaminated soils were removed from the property
as was the underground tank. Office buildings constructed by the previous which
contained asbestos, which was removed by a licensed contractor. Finally, a
groundwater monitoring program was developed and implemented to ensure
minimal contamination of the underground aquifer.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would be considered to result in a significant impact if it
would directly or indirectly contribute to a potential public health hazard or involve
the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or animal
or plant populations in the project area.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 49
City of South San Francisco April 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on a preliminary site assessment, the site contains potentially significant
hazardous materials.
Impact 4.5-1 (Hazardous Materials): The project site has been determined to be
contaminated. The Environmental Site Assessment document (Kleinfelder, 1997)
recommends that the project developer contact the San Mateo County Department
of Health Services to determine appropriate site remediation, if any, is required
(potentially significant impact).
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential hazardous
materials impacts to alevel fless-than-significance:
Mitigation Measure 4 5-1 (Hazardous Materials): Prior to commencement of
demolition activities on the site, the project developer shall contact the San Mateo
County Health Department for site clearances with regard to identified potentially
hazardous materials on the site.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 50
City of South San Francisco April 1999
4.6 AESTHETICS AND LIGHT AND GLARE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Aesthetic impacts would include obstruction of views and vistas or the creation of
an aesthetically offensive view to the public. The potential effects of new light and
glare sources are also addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site was previously developed with a warehouse building which had
been closed for a period of time. The adjacent parking lot had not been used and was
poorly maintained and minimal landscaping was provided in either the parking lot
or adjacent to El Camino. The warehouse building was recently demolished.
A temporary construction facility has been located on the project site as part of the
BART southerly extension to San Francisco International Airport
Views north of the site are of a mobile home park and vehicle storage yard. To the
west, a new subdivision is under construction, with a large landscaped setback
adjacent to El Camino. Amulti-story hospital has been constructed south of the site
adjoining El Camino. To the east, distant views are available of a cemetery within
the City of Colma.
Major views within this portion of the community are towards San Bruno
Mountain to the north.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A significant adverse impact would result if:
a) there is a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect;
b) the proposed project would significantly block a vista or scenic highway;
c) substantial new sources of light or glare would "spill over" onto adjacent
properties or roadways.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASUSRES
Approval of the proposed project would have a minor effect on the aesthetic quality
of the site, since the proposed use of the site is similar in size and scale with the
previous use
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 51
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Impact 4.6-1 Aesthetic Change of the Sitel: Implementation of the proposed
project is expected to have a minor and less-than-significant impact to on-site
aesthetics, since the proposed use is similar to the previous use (less-than-
significant).
Impact 4.6-2 (Views and Vistasl: Since the size and scale of the proposed Costco
warehouse building is similar to the recently demolished building on the site,
less-than-significant impacts would be expected with regard to blockage of views,
or interference with views or vistas from El Camino Real (less-than-significant).
Impact 4.6-3 (Light and Glarel: Implementation of the proposed project would
induce new sources of light and glare into El Camino Real and perhaps adjoining
properties, primarily from new parking lot and building security lighting
(potentially significant)
Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 (Light and Glarel: A lighting plan shall be approved for
the project by both the Planning Division and Police Departments to ensure that
all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut-
off lenses to ensure that no spill over of unwanted light onto adjacent properties
or streets shall occur.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 will reduce potential light and glare impacts
to a level of less than significance.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 52
City of South San Francisco April 1999
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative
analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed project which have the potential of
achieving project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant
impacts of the project
The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through
comparison of these alternatives to the preferred project, the advantages of each can
be weighed and considered by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA Guidelines
require a range of alternatives "governed by the rule of reason" and require the EIR
to set forth a range of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
Alternatives selected for analysis in this document include:
• Alternative 1: "No Project" (required by CEQA to be considered).
• Alternative 2: Multi-Family development on the site.
• Alternative 3: Retail commercial development on the site
Alternatives are described and evaluated below.
5.1 No Project
CEQA requires an analysis of a "no project" alternative. Under this alternative, it is
assumed that the existing vacant lot would continue to remain vacant and no
development of any kind would occur.
This alternative would avoid the range of environmental impacts described in this
document, including:
Earth and Geotechnical: No excavation, grading or related impacts would
occur, nor would there be anticipated impacts related with exposing building
improvements, employees and visitors to the potential of seismic hazards.
Land Use: The project site would remain vacant and would not generate
employment within the community would nor would tax revenues accrue
the City of South San Francisco.
• Transportation, parking and circulation: Existing traffic patterns would
continue as currently found. There would be no traffic generation from the
project site.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 53
City of South San Francisco April 1999
• Air quality: No major increases in construction-related, local or permanent
regional impacts would occur.
Hazardous Material: Clean up of hazardous materials conditions on the site
would likely occur over a number of years since no immediate incentives
would be provided remediation of the site would occur.
Aesthetics, light and glare: There would be no sources of light and glare from
the site
5.2 Alternative 2: Multi-Family Residential
The second alternative assumes that the site would be rezoned to the R-2-H
Medium Density Multiple Family District. This District allows a maximum of 15
dwelling units per acre. With a site size of 15 acres, a total of 225 dwellings could be
constructed. Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include:
• Earth and Geotechnical: It is anticipated that the same if not more extensive
grading would be required to accommodate proposed buildings, parking areas
and recreational amenities that would be associated with amulti-family
development.
• Land Use: The City's General Plan Land Use Designation would need to be
changed and the site rezoned to accommodate proposed multi-family
development.
• Transportation, parking and circulation: There would be less peak hour and
total traffic compared with the proposed project.
• Air quality: Fewer long-term, permanent air quality impacts would result
from this alternative than the proposed project, primarily because of fewer
trips associated with the project. Short-term construction air quality impacts
would be the same as the proposed project, however.
• Hazardous Material: Clean up of hazardous materials conditions on the site
would likely be the same as the proposed project.
• Aesthetics, light and glare: Less of an impact regarding light and glare would
be expected, since light standards typically are lower for residential complexes
than major commercial developments. The same or a lesser impact regarding
blockage of views would result in comparison with the proposed project.
This alternative does not meet the project objective of maximizing tax revenues to
the City or increasing employment opportunities within the community. It would
therefore not likely represent the highest and best use of the site. Alternative 5.2
may result in potentially significant noise impacts with residential construction,
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 54
City of South San Francisco April 1999
since there would be a permanent population on the site. No noise impacts are
anticipated with the proposed project..
5.3 Alternative 3: Retail Commercial Development
The third alternative assumes development of a strip commercial center on the site.
Such a complex typically has one story with surface parking in front of retail uses.
With a floor Area Ratio of 0.25 (typical of a strip retail center), the estimated amount
of development would be 163,350, approximately the same as the Costco proposal.
Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include:
• Earth and Geotechnical: It is anticipated that the same amount of grading
and excavation would be required to accommodate strip commercial center
on the site.
• Land Use: Approximately the same impacts would result with this alternative
as would be experienced with the proposed project.
• Transportation, parking and circulation: There would be somewhat less peak
hour and total traffic compared with the proposed project.
• Air quality: The same air quality impacts would likely result, with potentially
less of a long term, permanent regional impact due to less traffic.
• Hazardous Material: Clean up of hazardous materials conditions on the site
would likely be the same as the proposed project.
• Aesthetics, light and glare: The same impacts would occur. with a typical
commercial development as would with a warehouse type retail complex.
This alternative does not meet the project objectives since it would not represent
the highest site utilization as would the proposed project and would return a lesser
amount of tax and other revenues to the City of South San Francisco.
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126 (d) (4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall
also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
For the project analyzed in this EIR, the No Project alternative would be considered
the environmentally superior alternative, since none of the anticipated
environmental impacts described in Section 4.0 would occur, primarily traffic and
air quality impacts. However, the No Project alternative would not meet the project
objectives to facilitate the highest and best utilization of the site, to increase local
employment opportunities and increasing local tax and other revenues to the City..
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 55
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Neither of the other two alternatives, Alternatives 5.2 or 5.3, would result in
environmental impacts significantly lower than the Proposed Project.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 56
City of South San Francisco April 1999
6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects
This section of the DEIR addresses the potential long-term effects of implementing
the proposed project, as required by CEQA.
6.1 Short-Term Uses v. Long-Term Productivity
Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
CEQA mandates that all EIRs consider the relationship between short- term use of
resources, such as land for development purposes, versus the long-term benefits of
allowing the subject property to remain as undeveloped open space. The
relationship between short-term use of environmental resources and the
maintenance of long-term productivity is often one of trade-off, or of balancing
social, economic, environmental and similar concerns over time. In some instances,
a relatively short-term benefit may have adverse effects, with the possibility that
future generations may be burdened with unwarranted social or economic costs.
The opposite situation, in which .long-term benefits occur at the expense of short-
term impacts may also occur. The ultimate decision as to the unique balance of
factors lies with the South san Francisco Planning Commission.
The project under consideration is the proposed approval of a development plan for
a Costco wholesale facility and associated gasoline service station.
Short-term impacts anticipated to be associated with the project would include
construction-related noise and emission of dust related to grading and site
preparation and erosion. Potential long-term impacts would include grading and
excavation, exposure of additional people and property to seismic risk, increased
traffic and air quality emissions, increased sources of light from the site.
As demonstrated in Section 4 of the DEIR, with the exception of long-term
cumulative regional air emissions, each of the above are considered less-than-
significant impacts or can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level..
6.2 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
~gnificant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources
Construction of the proposed project would indirectly result in irretrievable
commitment and use of energy and non-renewable resources for construction and
operation of the future warehouse and service station use, including such resources
as sand and gravel, lumber and other forest products, asphalt, petrochemicals and
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 57
City of South San Francisco April 1999
metals. The level and amount of commitment of such resources is commensurate
with similar development projects undertaken in the Bay Area and throughout
California and the nation.
6.3 Significant Irreversible Impacts
This section of the DEIR identifies significant environmental effects of the proposed
project which cannot be mitigated using all feasible mitigation measures. The one
such impact identified is long-term, cumulative regional air quality emissions.
6.4 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
All EIRs must consider the potential growth inducement of projects. A project is
generally considered to be growth inducing if it will foster economic or population
growth or will cause the construction of new housing, either directly or indirectly,
within a given geographic area. Projects which remove obstacles to population
growth are also deemed to be growth inducing. Increases in population may strain
existing community services or utility systems, so consideration must be given to
this impact. The characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other
growth activities which could significantly affect the environment, either
individually or cumulatively, must also be discussed.
Approval of the proposed project could be considered growth inducing, since
additional employees, visitors and associated vehicular traffic could be attracted to
the site. However, the proposed project represents a relocation of the same type of
use from the San Bruno Costco facility, which is anticipated to be closed after the
proposed Costco is opened. Also, the type of use proposed on the site would be
consistent with the City's General Plan and -zoning .ordinance. Finally, the site
represents redevelopment of a previously developed site with properties on all sides
of the site fully developed so that no additional commercial uses would be attracted
to the site.
6.5 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are those which taken individually may be minor but, when
combined with similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed
development projects and planned but not built projects, have the potential to
generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be
evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe the severity of
the impacts and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that
the discussion of cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need not be as detailed as
that provided for the project alone. Cumulative impacts may be addressed using one
of two methods:
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 58
City of South San Francisco April 1999
a listing of past, present and reasonable anticipated future and probable
projects, within or adjacent to the community containing the project site,
which could produce related or cumulative impacts; or
a summary of projections contained in the adopted General Plan or related
planning documents which evaluated regional environmental impacts of a
number of projects within a given geographic area.
For purposes of this EIR the second approach has been chosen to address cumulative
impacts. Copies of the City of South San Francisco General Plan are available at the
Planning Division, 315 Maple Street, South San Francisco CA.
A summary of expected cumulative indirect impacts follows. Impacts are generally
considered indirect since the project itself will not directly cause new growth within
the project area, although the purpose of the project is to induce redevelopment of
blighted properties.
• Earth and Geotechnical: Grading and excavation would be required for new
construction and for infrastructure improvements. This is not considered a
cumulative impact. Short-term soil erosion during site construction could be
considered a cumulative impact; however, adherence to Best Management
Practices and erosion and sedimentation plans as required by the City of San
South San Francisco would ensure that no cumulative earth-related impacts
occur
• Land Use: Land use impacts would not be considered a significant cumulative
impact, since the proposed development would generally comply with the
type and intensity of land use envisioned in the City's General Plan and
Zoning Code.
• Transportation, parking and circulation: Cumulative traffic and
transportation impacts have been addressed in Section 4.3 of the EIR.
• Air quality: Cumulative air quality impacts have been addressed in Section
4.4 of the EIR.
• Hazardous Material: No cumulative impacts are anticipated with regard to
hazardous materials.
• Aesthetics and light and glare: Although localized impacts to aesthetics could
result from implementing the proposed project, such impacts are not
expected to be cumulative.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 59
City of South San Francisco April 1999
6.6 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated
to ales-than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts in considering
whether to approve the underlying project. If the benefits of the proposed project
outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse environmental impacts
may be considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the project without
significantly reducing or eliminating an adverse impact, the Lead Agency must
make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the information in the
record.
Regional, long-term cumulative air quality emissions have been identified as a
significant and unavoidable impact.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 60
City of South San Francisco April 1999
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
7.1 Persons and Organizations
EIR Preparers
The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document.
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager and principal author)
Situ?? Rajappan & Meyer (traffic analysis)
Donald Ballanti (air quality)
Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics)
City of South San Francisco Staff
James Harnish, Chief Planner
Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
Richard Harmon, Sr. Engineering Technician
7.2 References
The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used
in the preparation of this DEIR.
Kleinfelder Inc., Geotechnical Investigation Report, South San Francisco
Costco, February, 1999.
City of South San Francisco, General Plan Background Report, September,
1997.
City of South San Francisco, General Plan Text and Map.
City of South San Francisco, Zoning Ordinance.
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 61
City of South San Francisco April 1999
8.0 Appendices
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 62
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Appendix 8.1
Initial Study
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 63
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Costco Project Initial Study
City of South San Francisco
General Purpose and Scope of Environmental Review
This Initial Study document has been prepared to determine whether or not approval of the
proposed Costco development project (the project) would have a significant effect on the
environment and to identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce such impacts to a level of less
than significance. The proposed project involves converting the closed Macy's warehouse
distribution center to a Costco wazehouse facility on approximately 15 acres of land.
Environmental Procedures
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act
and complies with the rules, regulations and procedures of CEQA as adopted by the City of
South San Francisco.
Lead Agency/Contact Persons
In accord with the Sections 15050 and 15367 of Guidelines implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, following is the Lead Agency and
contact person for this project.
Ms. Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
315 Mapleand Avenue
South San Francisco CA 94083
(650) 877 8535
Responsible/Trustee Agencies
Responsible agencies aze those which have discretionary approval over one or more actions in
the ultimate construction of the proposed project. Trustee agencies aze state agencies having
discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over material resources affected by the proposed
project. Implementation of the project may require review or action by one or more of the
following Responsible or Trustee agencies:
State Water Resources Control Boazd (General Construction Permit)
San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency (consistency with Congestion
Management Plan)
Encroachment permit from Caltrans (work within Caltrans right-of-way along El Camino
Real).
Project Location and Context
The proposed project site is located within the northerly portion of South San Francisco, on the
east side of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection
of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. The street address of the property is 1556 El Camino
Real. Assessor's Parcel Number for the site include 010-212-070.
The site encompasses approximately 26 acres of land and is relatively flat a gradual slope to the
east towards Colma Creek.
Surrounding uses include a recreational vehicle storage yard to the north, Colma Creek and a
cemetery to the east within the City of Colma and vacant lands to the south. A new residential
development is under construction to the west, on the west side of El Camino Real, consisting of
174 single family dwellings and 34 townhomes.
Project Description
The proposed project includes demolishing the existing structure on the site, which consists of a
one-story concrete tilt-up building of approximately 382,000 square feet and associated surface
parking improvements. Anew warehouse distribution center would then be built on the site, to
be owned (confirm) and operated by Costco Wholesale.
A Costco warehouse sales facility is planned to be located on the northwest corner of the site.
This building would include approximately 147,000 gross square feet of floor area in a single
story configuration, with primary interior uses being administrative offices, a central receiving
area and the wholesale portion of the building. The building would be used for wholesaling of
goods and services, including food products, clothing, personal care, household and electronic
goods, automotive supplies and similar products for resale, commercial and personal use. Sales
would also occur to individuals who are members of selected employee and related groups.
Hours of operation would be from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Another component of the project would be an automobile gasoline service station to be
constructed in conjunction with the warehouse facility. The gas station would be located along
the easterly side of the site near the 60,000 square foot building with use of the gas station
restricted to Costco members only. Four pump islands with canopies would be built with 8 self-
service pumps installed. A maximum of 16 vehicles could be refueled at one time. Hours of
operation for the gas station would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days per week. New
underground tanks would be installed as part of the gas station.
Access to the site would be provided by two driveways from El Camino, one proposed to be
located along the northerly property line the other along the southerly site property line. The
southerly drive would also serve future land uses south of Costco. Approximately 736 on-site
parking spaces would be provided.
Associated improvements would also consist of minor site grading, construction of landscaping
and irrigation systems within the parking lots and adjacent to buildings, installation of utility
upgrades, including but not limited to water, sewer, drainage and telecommunication
improvements, construction of identification signs and installation of new site lighting.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 2
Costco project March 1999
To implement the project, the following land use entitlements have been requested from the City
of South San Francisco:
A Use Permit, to be acted upon by the South San Francisco Planning Commission;
Type C Sign Permit;
Site History
The project site was used previously used by Macys's depaztment store as a regional wazehouse
and distribution center. Due to changing business practices, the facility was no longer needed as
a warehouse and was sold.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 3
Costco project March 1999
Agency Approvals
Approvals, review and/or permits required for the proposed project include, but aze not
necessazily limited to the following, in addition to the requested City entitlements.
• Adoption of this Negative Declazation;
• Issuance grading, sewer, stormwater and building permits by City of South San
Francisco;
• Encroachment permits from Caltrans to allow new driveways along El Camino Real;
• A Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that
storm water runoff from the site complies with surface water quality standards;
• Encroachment permit from San Mateo County Flood Control District to discharge
additional quantities of stormwater into Colma Creek;
• Air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to
dispense gasoline from the proposed auto service station;
• Review by Congestion Management Agency to ensure consistency with the County-wide
Congestion Management Plan (CMP).
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 4
Costco project March 1999
Environmental Checklist Form
The following two sections of this document evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed
project. The environmental checklist, approved by the City of South San Francisco and
consistent with CEQA Guidelines, has been used to focus this study on physical, social and
economic factors that may be further impacted by the proposed project. The checklist indicates
with a "potentially significant impact, " "potentially significant impact unless mitigated," "less
than significant impact, " or "no impact" for each specified environmental topic.
A second section, Checklist Responses and Environmental Analysis, will respond and analyze in
detain those impacts identified in the checklist. A brief explanation is required for all answers
except "no impact" answers that aze adequately supported. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact does not apply to the
proposed project.
An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepazed by the Lead Agency to determine whether an
EIR or a Negative Declazation must be prepazed for a specific project and to determine the
significant effects to be analyzed in an EIR. The Initial Study for the proposed Costco residential
project will serve to focus on effects determined to be potentially significant. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines, the following checklist has been prepazed that identified any environmental
effects.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 5
Costco project March 1999
Environmental Checklist
1. Project title
2. Lead agency:
3. Contact person:
4. Project location:
5. Project sponsor:
6. General Plan designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Project Description
9. Surrounding uses:
Costco wholesale facility
City of South San Francisco
Planning Department
400 Grand Ave.
South San Francisco CA 94083
Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
(650) 877 8535
East side of West Orange Avenue, between Railroad
Avenue and North Canal Street
Costco Wholesale
Planned Commercial
P-C-L (Planned Commercial)
Proposed construction of 147,000 wholesale warehouse on
approximately 15 acres of land, to also include a, gasoline
service station.
North: Recreational vehicle storage yard
South: vacant/temporary BART concrete batch plant
East: Cemetery (City of Colma)
El Camino High School (City of South San Francisco)
West: Vacant (approved residential project under construction)
l0.Other public agency required approvals:
Issuance of encroachment, grading, sewer, stormwater and building permits by City of
South San Francisco;
A Notice of Intent (NOn from the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that
storm water runoff from the site complies with surface water quality standards;
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 6
Costco project March 1999
• Encroachment permit from Caltrans for work within El Camino Real right-of--way;
• Encroachment permit from San Mateo County Flood Control District to dischazge
additional quantities of stormwater into Colma Creek;
• Air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to
dispense gasoline from the proposed auto service station;
• Review by Congestion Management Agency to ensure consistency with the County-wide
Congestion Management Plan (CMP).
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 7
Costco project March 1999
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use/Planning X Transportation/ - Public Services
Circulation
- Population/Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities/Service
S stems
X Geotechnical - Energy/Mineral X Aesthetics
Resources
- Water X Hazards - Cultural Resources
X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
X Mandatory Findings
of Si nificance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is
required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E1R, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed on the proposed project.
Signature:
Printed Name:
Date:
For:
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 8
Costco project March 1999
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site aswell as on-site,
cumulative as well asproject-level impacts, indirect as well as direct impacts, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is an appropriate determination if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there aze one or more "potentially significant
impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declazation: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies
elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially
significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 9
Costco project March 1999
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing
of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
I. Land Use and Planning. Will the project:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source: 1)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or polices adopted with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source: 1)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in
the vicinity? (Source: 1, 9)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(soils or farmlands or impacts from
incompatible uses)? (Source: 9)
e) Disrupt the physical arrangement of an
established community (including low
income or a minority community)? (Source:
9)
II. Population and Housing. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source: 2, 10)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Source: 1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (Source: 9)
III. Soils and Geology. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source: 3 )
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: 3)
c) Seismic ground failure? (Source: 3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, including liquefaction?
(Source: 3)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source: 3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill? (Source: 3)
g) Subsidence of land? (Source: 3)
h) Expansive soils? (Source: 3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
(Source: 3, 10)
Potentially
Significant Potentially
Significant
Unless
Miti ated Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 10
Costco project March 1999
IV. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off? (Source: 8)
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazazds such as flooding? (Source: 7)
c) Dischazge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
(Source: 7, 8)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? (Source: 7, 8)
e) Changes in currents or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source: 10)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Source:3)
g) Altered direction of rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source: 10)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source: 10)
i) Substantial reduction on the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (Source: 8)
V. Air Quality. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standazd or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 5)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Source:5)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (Source: 5)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 9)
VI. Transportation/Circulation. Would the
proposal result in?
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(Source: 4)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(Source: 4)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source: 4, 7)
Potentially
Significant Potentially
Significant
Unless
Miti ated Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 11
Costco project March 1999
d) Insufficient pazking capacity onsite or offsite?
(Source: 7)
e) Hazazds or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source:? )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g .bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source: 1)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
(Source: 9)
VII. Biological Resources. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)?
(Source: 2.9)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source: 2, 9)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat)? (Source: 2)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source: 2)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(Source: 2, 9)
VII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source: 1)
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source: 10)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and residents of the
State? (Source: 2, 10)
IX. Hazards. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazazdous substances including but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or
radiation? (Source: 10)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 7)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (Source: 10)
Potentially
Significant Potentially
Significant
Unless
Miti ated ]~ess than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 12
Costco project March 1999
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazazds? (Source: 10)
e) Increased fire hazazd in azeas with flammable
brush, grass or trees? (Source: 7)
X. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source: 6)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Source: 6)
XI. Public Services. Would the proposal result in
a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas?
a) Fire protection? (Source: 7)
b) Police protection? (Source:? )
c) Schools? (Source: 8)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source: 8)
e) Other governmental services? (Source: 8)
XII. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations in the
following utilities?
a) Power or natural gas? (Source: 2)
b) Communication systems? (Source: 2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution systems? (Source: 8)
d) Sewer or septic systems? (Source: 7)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source: 7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source: 8)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source: 8)
XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or view? (Source: 9)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source: 9)
c) Create light or glaze? (Source: 9)
XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source:
10)
b) Disturb archeological resources? (Source: 10)
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source: 10)
Potentially
Significant Potentially
Significant
Unless
Miti ated Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 13
Costco project March 1999
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within potential impact area? (Source: 10)
XV. Recreation. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational
facilities? (Source: 7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Source: 7)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 of 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?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c) 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).
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant Potentially
Significant
Unless
Miti ated Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. South San Francisco General Plan
2. General Plan Existing Conditions Report
3. Traffic analysis prepared by Rajjapan & Meyers.
4. Air quality analysis prepared by Don Ballanti
5. Site Hazards Analysis prepared by Kleinfelder Associates
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 14
Costco project March 1999
6 Communication with appropriate City of South San Francisco Departments
7. Communication with appropriate service provider or public agency with jurisdiction
8. Site visit
9. Other source
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 15
Costco project March 1999
Attachment to Costco Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Following is a discussion of the preceding checklist items. Each subsection is annotated with a
number, name and letter corresponding to the checklist form
As stated in the previous section, questions responded to with a "no impact" response, which are
adequately supported by appropriate background information, do not require further explanation.
Therefore, only those questions marked other than "no impact" are discussed below. Roman
numerals correspond to sections within the checklist section.
I. Land Use and Planning
As part of the proposed project, the applicant has requested a Use Permit and Parcel Map to
construct the project as planned. Details regarding these applications are contained in the Project
Description of this Initial Study.
Impact I-1: Conflict with General Plan designation or zoning? The proposed project
would be consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
which designates the site as Planned Commercial. Therefore, no impacts would occur and
no mitigation measures would be needed.
Impact I-2: Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies? The proposed
project would not conflict with environmental plans or polices expressed in the South San
Francisco General Plan. No significant impacts are therefore expected in terms of
conflicts with environmental plans or policies and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact I-3: Incompatibilities with land use in the surrounding area? The proposed
project includes constructing approximately 147,000 square feet of wholesale and retail
commercial. Such uses are appropriate to be sited along major transportation
thoroughfares, such as El Camino, and would be consistent with the surrounding
recreational vehicles storage yard to the north, the vacant site to the south and medium
density residential development to the west. Less-than-significant impacts would result
and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact I-4: Would the project affect agricultural operations? There is no recent history
of farming or other agricultural operations on the site. The site has been developed for a
number of years as a regional department store warehouse and distribution center. No
impacts would result if the project were built and no mitigation measures are required
Impact I-5: Would the project disrupt the physical arrangement of an established
community? The site is considered an infill site with all surrounding properties fully
developed No disruption of an existing community would result if the project were built
and no mitigation measures are needed.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 16
Costco project March 1999
II. Population and Housing
Environmental Impacts
Impact II-1. Will the project cumulatively exceed official regional population
projections? The proposed project consists of wholesale and retail type uses and would
not add new population to the City. There would therefore beno significant
environmental impact and no mitigation measures would be required.
Impact II-2. Would the project induce substantial growth in this portion of the
community, either directly or indirectly? Surrounding properties are substantially
developed and designated for commercial uses. No growth inducing impacts would
therefore occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact II-3. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? The project site has been previously developed with a warehouse building with
no housing on the site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required.
III. Soils and Geology
Impact III-1: Is the site subject to faull rupture? The site is not within the boundazies of
an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults aze known to occur within the site
boundaries. This is based on community-wide information contained in the General Plan
Existing Conditions Report Therefore, the risk of damage due to primary fault rupture is
determined to be very low. This is not considered a significant impact and no mitigation
measures are required.
Impact III-2: Is the site subject to ground shaking? Based on historical evidence it is
likely that at least one significant earthquake will likeley produce strong ground shaking
at the project site during the life of the proposed structures. Ground shaking at the project
site is projected to be moderate (VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale) which is
associated with the following types of damage:
• Slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings,
with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures; panel walls thrown out of frame
structures; chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall.
• The expected peak horizontal acceleration (with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded
in the next 50 yeazs) generated by any of the seismic sources potentially affecting the
azea is estimated at 0.6 to 0.7 g (CDMG, 1996). One to two story wood frame
residential structures built according to current building codes typically perform well
during earthquakes in the absence of ground failure.
The City of South San Francisco adminsters the most recent version of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC), which contains standazds to ensure buildings will survive major
seismic events, including ground shaking. Adherence to all provisions of the Uniform
Building Code ensure that potential ground shaking impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level and no mitigation measures are required.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 17
Costco project March 1999
Impact III-3: Is the site subject to seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Liquefaction could result in ground settlement that could damage structures, utilities, and
pavement. Based on Figure 10-2 contained in the Existing Conditions and Planning
Issues Report, the site s subject to "moderate" liquefaction potential. Adherence to design
standazds and use of modern construction techniques will reduce the potential effects of
liquefaction to a less than significant level and no mitigation measures are needed.
Impact III-4. Is the site subject to seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? The site is not
located in a low-lying azeas or in proximity to any lazge bodies of water that could
produce tsunami, seiches or inundation from dam failure. The project site is not located
within an active volcanic region and no volcanic hazazds are present at the site. No
impacts are anticipated with regard to seiches or tsunamis and no mitigation measures
are required.
Impact III-5. Is the site subject to landslides or mudjlows? There aze no major slopes
on or adjacent to the project site, therefore landsliding and other slope instabilities are not
a hazard at the site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact III-6. Is the site subject to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? The project site has been previously
graded to accommodate the existing warehouse and distribution center. According to the
project civil engineer, minor amounts of grading would be needed to construct the
proposed project. All grading would be conducted on the project site with no anticipated
need to import dirt on the site or export dirt from the site. The precise amount of earthen
material to be moved is not known at this time. However, due to the need to demolish
existing improvements and construct few facilities could result in erosion of stormwater
and other waters off of the site. Although this would be a potentially significant impact,
especially since the site is located adjacent to Colma Creek, the applicant will be required
to complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to SWPPP
Best Management Practices would reduce construction stormwater runoff to a level of
less-than-significance and no mitigation measures would be needed.
Impact III-7. Is the site subject to subsidence of land? The project would not involve
permanent withdrawal of groundwater or removal of oil or natural gas, therefore, the
project would not result in regional subsidence. No impacts are anticipated in regard to
possible land subsidence and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact III-8. Does the site contain expansive soils? Information contained in the
Geology section of the General Plan Background Report (page 10-21) indicates that the
site is chazacterized primarily by alluvial fill material, which typically is not expansive
This is not a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact III-9. Would the project effect unique geologic features? Unique geologic
features are considered to be lazge rock outcroppings or other topographic features with
historical or cultural significance. No such unique geologic features are located on the
site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 18
Costco project March 1999
IV. Water
Environmental Setting
The project is located in the northerly portion of South San Francisco with the neazest body of
surface water, Colma Creek, forming the easterly boundary of the site. Colma Creek is a
regionally significant drainage channel with a drainage tributary azea of approximately 16 squaze
miles. Near the project site, Colma Creek is confined into a trapezoidal channel. Colma Creek is
not subject to tidal influences in this location. Drainage outfalls have previously been constructed
into Colma Creek for the wazehouse and distribution center. According to representatives from
the San Mateo County Flood Control District, Colma Creek is being upgraded in the vicinity of
the project as part of the BART extension program. South of the project site, Colma Creek will
be undergrounded. Existing drainage outfalls on the project site are being reconstructed as part of
the BART program.
Based on information contained on Figure 10-2 of the General Plan Existing Conditions Report,
the easterly portion of the site adjacent to Colma Creek are subject to flooding during 100-year
or greater flood events.
Project Impacts
Impact IV-1: Changes to absorption rates? The project site is presently fully developed
with buildings and paved parking facilities. The amount of impervious surfaces on the
property is neazly 100%, according to the project civil engineer. Construction of the
proposed proejct would serve to reduce the amount of impervious by adding additional
amounts of landscaped planters which do not presently exist. This would reduce the
amount of stormwater runoff from the site. Therefore, no impacts would result in terms of
additional storm water runoff from the site and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV-2: Exposure of people or property to flood hazard? The easterly portion of
the project site adjacent to Colma Creek would be inundated with flood water during a
100-year flood event or greater. However, significant site improrements would be
constructed along the west side of the site, adjacent to El Camino. Therefore, less than
significant impacts are anticipated with respected to potential flood and no mitigation
measures would be required.
Impact IV-3: Discharge into surface waters or changes to surface water quality? The
proposed project would not increase surface water discharge into Colma Creek above
historic discharge rates. Since the project site is greater than five acres in size, the project
developer must comply with NPDES (National Pollution Dischazge Elimination System),
required by the Federal Clean Water Act and enforced by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Boazd and the State Water Resources Control Board. As
part of NPDES requirements, the project developer must prepare and comply with a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which typically incorporates specific
methods to control off-site storm water runoff during construction and post-construction
phases of the project. The SWPPP must be prepazed and improved prior to
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 19
Costco project March 1999
commencement of project construction. Adherence to requirements of the SWPPP will
reduce potential water quality impacts to a level of less than significance and no
mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV-4: Changes in the amount of surface water or water quality? The proposed
project would not increase surface water dischazge into Colma Creek, as described above.
According to representative of the County Flood Control District, such increases would
not be significant, given historical contributions from the site into the Creek and that
Creek improvements have been sized to accommodate future development of this site.
Storm water runoff from the site could degrade water quality due to mixing of oil and
grease, lawn and garden chemicals and other organic and inorganic substances into storm
water runoff. Such impacts aze typically more substantial during "first flush" rain storms
of the season. The project developer would be obligated to obtain necessazy permits from
the State Water Quality Control Boazd (SWQCB), since the site is greater than 5 acres.
Both the City of South San Francisco and SWQCB require the preparation and approval
of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, identifying specific Best Management
Practice measures to be taken during construction and post construction phases of the
project to ensure that water quality is maintained. Through review by SWQCB and City
staff and preparation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, no additional
mitigation measures are needed. Adherence to these requirements will ensure that
potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV-5: Changes in currents or direction of water flow? No increases in water
flow into Colma Creek would occur, based on discussions with the project civil engineer.
There would therefore be no impacts to the direction of water flow and no mitigation
measures would be required.
Impact IV-6: Changes in quantity of groundwater The project would consist of
wholesale and retail sales of goods and services. According to representatives from the
local water provider, adequate water supplies exist to serve the proposed project without
affecting local groundwater supplies. There would therefore be no impacts to quantities
of groundwater and no mitigation measures are needed.
Impact IV-7: Altered direction of groundwater flow? Since no major subsurface
construction is proposed as pazt of the project, existing patterns of groundwater flows aze
not expected to be changed This impact is considered less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV-8: Impacts to groundwater quality? Major subsurface construction is not
anticipated as part of the project nor is the type of use proposed for the site anticipated to
result in impacts to groundwater resources This impact is considered not significant and
no mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV-9: Substantial reduction in groundwater resources ? The proposed project
would require water for domestic and firefighting purposes. Based upon discussions with
California Water Service representatives, this amount of water is not anticipated to be
significant and no mitigation measures are required. See Impact XIII-3 for additional
discussion of potential water impacts.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 20
Costco project March 1999
V. Air Quality
Project Impacts
Impact V-1. Would the project violate air quality standards or contribute to a projected
air quality violation ?Three potential air quality impacts are identified in this Initial
Study: short term construction impacts, long term operational impacts and regional
impacts.
Short Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations,
construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust
emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional
air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in
adhesives, non-waterbase paints, thinners, some insulating materials and caulking
materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the
photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source
of organic gases for a short time after its application.
Construction dust could affect local air quality at vazious times during construction of the
project. The dry, windy climate of the azea during the summer months creates a high
potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils aze exposed to the atmosphere.
The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated
levels of PM 10 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for
creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially significant
and the following mitigation measure is recommended.
Long Term Operational Impacts
On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing
carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an
odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles.
Concentrations of this gas are highest neaz intersections of major roads.
Air quality impacts should be addresses in an EIR.
Impact V-2. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Potential impacts to sensitive
receptors and mitigation measures have been addressed in Impact V-1.
Impact V -3. Alter air movement, moisture or other climactic condition? The proposed
project does not contain any features that would block existing air currents or wind
movement nor result in any other potentially significant climactic changes. No impacts
are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact V-4. Create objectionable odors? The project is proposed to consist of
commercial development, although a portion of the project would include construction of
a gasoline service station. Gasoline dispensing is regulated through permitting processes
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 21
Costco project March 1999
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for release of potentially
hazazdous and odor-causing substances into the ambient air. The applicants will be
required to obtain such permits from the BAAQMD and permits required. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
Project Impacts
Impact VI-1 Would the project result in increased traffic congestion ?Traffic
impacts need to be addresed in an E1R.
Impact VI-2: Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features ?
The traffic analysis indicates that no unsafe traffic conditions would be created if the
improvements outlines in Mitigation Measure 10 are implemented. No impacts would
therefore occur regazding traffic safety and no additional mitigation measures aze
required.
Impact VI-3: Is adequate emergency access provided? Based upon discussions with
the South San Francisco Fire Department, two vehicular access points are required to
allow for adequate emergency vehicle access. The proposed project includes two
access points to El Camino Real. No impacts would therefore occur and no mitigation
measures are required.
Impact VI-4: Is sufficient parking provided? .The applicant proposes to provide 736
parking stalls, which includes handicapped spaces. This represents a ratio of one
parking space per 200 gross squaze feet of building azea, whihc is consistent with the
City of South San Francisco Zoning OrdinanceThere would be no impacts related to
parking and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact VI-5 Would the project result in hazards or barriers to pedestrians or
bicyclists? A sidewalks currently exist along the west side of site along El Camino
No hazards to pedestrians would be created and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact VI-6: Would the project conflict with alternative transportation policies?
Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any existing City
policy regarding promoting alternative modes of transit. No impacts to alternative
transit is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact VI-7: Would the project create rail, waterborne to air traffic impacts ?The
proposed project would have no impact on these modes to transit. Therefore, there
would be no impact to rail, water or rail transit and no mitigation measures are
needed.
VII. Biological Resources
Project Impacts
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 22
Costco project March 1999
Impact VII-1 Does the site contain endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds) Based
on a field investigation and material included within the General Plan Existing
Conditions Report,. the site does not contain rare, threatened or endangered species or
their habitat. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact VII-2 Does the site contain locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees).
No locally designated endangered species, including heritage trees, have been
observed on the site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required.
Impact VII-3 Does the site contain locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat) ? No locally designated natural communities, including oak
forests or coastal habitat, have been observed on the site. No impacts are foreseen and
no mitigation measures are required.
Impact VII-4 Does the site contain wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?Colma Creek, a regionally significant drainage channel, forms the southerly
boundary of the site. The channel is periodically cleared by the County Flood Control
District so that no wetland vegetation exists within or along the channel bottom Access
to Colma Creek is presently fenced to preclude human activity except for normal
maintenance functions undertaken by the County Flood Control District. No changes
in the amount of stormwater runoff into Colma Creek over existing and historic
volumes. No impacts to wetland habitats are this anticipated and no mitigations are
required.
Impact VII-5 Does the site contain wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Although wildlife corridors have been observed on the project site, Colma Creek,
adjacent to the site, likely provides such a corridor. Since Colma Creek is fenced off
from the proposed project and no obstructions or blockages to the Creek would be
constructed as part of this project, there would be no significant impacts to existing
wildlife corridors and no mitigation measures are required.
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The soils underlying much of the site is composed of alluvial fill and is not considered to be a
significant mineral resource.
The proposed project is not anticipated to use any unusual qualities of energy, either for
construction or on an operational basis.
Project Impacts
Impact VIII-1 Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans ?The proposed project would be required to comply with Title 24 energy standards
as part of new construction. Landscaping plans would need to be in compliance with AB
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 23
Costco project March 1999
325 which requires water budgets for new plantings and methods of irrigation. No
impacts are foreseen and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact VIII-2 Would the project use non renewable resources in a wasteful manner?
The proposed project would use normal and customary building materials typical of a
modern commercial project, including aggregate, sand, concrete, wood products,
petroleum-based shingles, plastics, metals and similaz products. No impacts are foreseen
regarding wasteful use of non-renewable resources and no mitigation measures are
required.
Impact VIII-3 Would the project resull in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and residents of the State? There
aze no known mineral resources on the site that would be lost if the project were built as
proposed. Therefore, no impacts would occur with regard to mineral resources, and no
mitigation measures are required.
IX. Hazards
Impact IX-1 Would the project result in a risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or
radiation? The proposed project would include dispensing of gasoline and other auto-
related chemicals as part of the Costco service station. If handled improperly, gasoline
spills could result. The project developer will be required to comply with local, county,
state and federal standazds for the sale, handling and storage of gasoline and similaz
materials. Adherence to all applicable standards relating to gasoline sale, handling and
storage will reduce the risk of accidential explosion or release of hazardous material to a
less than significant level and no mitigation measures are required..
Impact IX-2 Possible interference with emergency evacuation plans? The proposed
project would include a minimum of two vehiculaz access points on El Camino. This
satisfies City requirements for access points for commercial projects of this size.
Therefore, no impacts would result related to emergency evacuation plans and no
mitigation measures are required.
Impact IX-3 Would the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? No known health hazazds would result if the proposed project were to
be constructed. Although sources of contamination have been identified on the site based
on a previous site use, proposed uses would not involve manufacture or storage of
hazazdous materials. Therefore, no health hazards would be created and no mitigation
measures are required.
Impact IX-4 Would the project expose people to existing sources of potential health
hazards? The project site has been determined to be contaminated and this issue should
be addresses in an EIR.
Impact IX-5 Would the project increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass or trees? The project site would be improved with paved pazking azeas, permanent
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 24
Costco project March 1999
buildings and irrigated landscaping. Therefore, the potential for wildfires on the site
would be minimal. The storage and dispensing of gasoline motor fuel will be regulated
by local, county and state requirements. Less than significant impacts would result
related to fire hazards and no mitigation measures are required.
X. Noise
Project Impacts
Impact X-1 Would the project increase noise levels Construction of the proposed
project would increase local noise, both during the demolition and construction phase as
well as during the long-term operational phase of the project. Long-term sources of noise
would include mechanical noises, associated with heating, cooling and ventilating
equipment and vehicle noise, such as associated with delivery trucks and vehicles used by
patrons and employees of the facility. The amount of noise is anticipated to be less than
significant due to the lack of permanent, on-site residents and the distance of residences
away from the site. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact X-2 Would the project expose people to severe noise levels ? .Although
increases in the amount of local noise could be expected with construction of the
proposed project, noise exposure to local residents on the west side of El Camino is not
anticipated to be significant or severe due to the higher elevation of residences on the
west side of the site and the distance separating residential development on the west side
of the road from the Costco site. A less than significant impact is therefore anticipated
with regard to exposure of local residents to severe noise levels and no mitigation
measures are needed.
XI. Public Services.
Environmental Setting
Public services are provided by the following agencies:
• Fire Protection and Emergency Services. Fire protection and emergency services aze
provided by the City of South San Francisco Fire Department. The Department provides
fire suppression, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous
material control.
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the City of South San
Francisco Police Department, which maintains a 24-hour security patrol throughout the
community.
• Schools. The South San Francisco Unified School District provides educational services
to the community.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the
responsibility of the City of South San Francisco. The City shares costs for maintaining
El Camino Real with the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 25
Costco project March 1999
Environmental Impacts
Impact XI-1: Would the project result in potential fire protection impacts? According
to representatives from the South San Francisco Fire Department, construction of the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts to fire and rescue service. The
nearest fire station is located at 3300 Arroyo Way (Station No. 3) with an estimated
response time of 3 to 5 minutes. Equipment and personnel at this facility include an
engine company and a rescue truck ,manned by five personnel. As part of project review,
the Fire Department will attach conditions to ensure that provisions of the Uniform Fire
Code are met, including provision of adequate water quantity and pressure, construction
of fire hydrants within the project, ensuring adequate access to all structures in the
project, street addressing signs and adherence to minimum construction standards.
Therefore, no significant impacts would occur with respect to fire protection impacts and
no mitigation measures are required.
Impact XI-2: Would the project result in potential police impacts? According to
representatives from the South San Francisco Police Department, construction of the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts to the South San Francisco
Police Department. The primary use on the site, the Costco warehouse facility, would
develop and implement an on-site security program, including use of in-store plainclothes
security officers and spot checking customers leaving the building. As part of the final
buildings, all buildings on the site must comply with standard South San Francisco Police
Department security requirements, including but not limited to minimum levels of site
lighting, installation of locking devices for buildings and maintenance of surveillance
areas. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur related to police services and
no mitigation measures are required.
Impact XI-3: Would the project result in potential school impacts? The project would
not include new residential dwellings so that no impacts would occur to local schools and
no mitigation measures are required
Impact XI-4: Would the project result in potential maintenance impacts? Less than
significant impacts are anticipated regarding the need for City maintenance services.
Since all public improvements adjacent to the project would be newly constructed by the
project developer, no maintenance would be anticipated for several years following
completion of improvements. The project would contribute to increased maintenance
costs for El Camino Real, however, the amount of increased maintenance would be
incremental and is not quantifiable. Any future maintenance costs would also be fully or
partially off-set be taxes and fees paid by the site occupant(s). No mitigation measures
that therefore required.
Impact XI-5: Would there be potential impacts to other governmental services? No
significant impacts are anticipated to other governmental services. Therefore, no
mitigation measures are required.
XII. Utilities and Service Systems.
Environmental Setting
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 26
Costco project March 1999
The project site is served by the following service providers:
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Communications: Pacific Bell
• Water supply: California Water Service
• Sewage treatment: City of South San Francisco
• Storm drainage: City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Flood Control
District
• Solid waste disposal: South City Scavengers
Environmental Impacts
Impact XII-1 Would the project result in power or natural gas impacts? The proposed
project would be served electrical power and natural gas by Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) transmission facilities. PG&E presently has facilities El Camino to be
able to provide full service to the project site. The City will require that services to new
dwellings be undergrounded. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
required.
Impact XII-2 Would the project result in communication impacts ?The proposed
project would be provided telephone and telecommunication service by Pacific Bell.
Pacific Bell presently has facilities within El Camino to be able to provide full service to
the proposed subdivision. The City will require that services to new dwellings be
undergrounded. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact XII-3 Would the project result in impacts to local or regional water treatment
or distribution systems? According to representatives from California Water Service,
adequate water quantity and pressure can be supplied to the site via an existing 12-inch
main in El Camino to accommodate the type and intensity of development proposed. This
would include water for both domestic and firefighting use. Future uses on the project
site will be required to comply with water conservation measures, including but not
limited to low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscape plantings. Thus,
less than significant impacts to the local water system is anticipated and no mitigation
measures are required.
Impact XII-4 Would the project result in impacts to local or regional wastewater
treatment or distribution systems? According to representatives from the City's
Engineering Department, adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the
proposed development. The project developer will be required to relocate an existing
sewer line that currently traverses the site. The City of South San Francisco is presently
upgrading the water quality control plant, which will ensure more than adequate sewer
treatment capacity. Thus, less than significant impacts to the local and regional sewer
system is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 27
Costco project March 1999
Impact XII-5 Would the project result in storm drainage impacts? This topic is
addressed in Section III, Water.
Impact XII-6 Would the project impact local or regional water supplies? According to
representatives from California Water Service, adequate long term water supplies exist to
provide water to the proposed facility. Less than significant impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures are required.
Impact XII-7 Would the project generate signjicantly increased amounts of solid
waste? Although the proposed Costco facility would increase the amount of solid waste
generated, representatives of the local solid waste company indicate that the amount will
not be significant and can be accommodated with existing resources. Preliminarily, the
Costco wazehouse would be equipped with trash compactors or bailers to reduce the
volume of solid waste. The solid waste company is also mandated to reduce the amount
of solid waste through imposition of AB 939. Thus, there would be a less than significant
impact related to slid waste and no mitigation measures aze needed.
XIII. Aesthetics.
Environmental Setting
The project site has been previously developed with a similar type building and land use. The
main building has been built adjacent to El Camino with minimal landscaping provided.
Major views within this portion of the community are towards San Bruno Mountain to the north.
Environmental Impacts
Impact XIII-1 Would the project affect a scenic vista or view. Since the proposed
Costco building would replace a similar size and scale building, there would be no major
change affecting existing views and vistas. This impact is not considered significant and
no mitigation measures are required.
Impact XIII-2 Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ?
Construction of the proposed project would include demolishing the existing Macy's
warehouse building and constructing a large wholesale warehouse on the site. The project
frontage along El Camino would be improved with street trees with additional trees
planted within the parking lot of the proposed facility. This impact is not considered
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact XIII-3 Would the project create light or glare? There are presently no sources
of light on the site, since the existing building is vacant. Construction of the proposed
project would increase light sources due to the installation of security lighting, parking lot
lighting and related building lighting. Minimum levels of light are required for security
purposes. New light sources could "spill over" into Colma Creek and El Camino Real.
and this topic should be addressed in an EIR.
XIV. Cultural Resources
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 28
Costco project March 1999
Project Impacts
Impact XIV-1 Would the project disturb paleontological resources? The possibility is
low that paleontological or archeological artifacts would be found on the site, based on
previous site grading and construction.
Impact XIV-2 Would the project have the potential to disturb archeological resources?
The possibility is low that paleontological or archeological artifacts would be found on
the site, based on previous site construction. Mitigation XX would also apply to
archeological artifacts as well.
Impact XIV-3 Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ?The project site is presently developed
and contains no unique cultural or ethnic features. No impacts would result and no
mitigation measures are required.
Impact XIV-4 Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
potential impact area ?The project site is presently developed for commercial uses and
contains no religious or sacred uses or features. No impacts would result and no
mitigation measures are required.
XV. Recreation.
Project Impacts
Impact XV-1 Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? Construction of the proposed Costco project
would not increase the demand for local park or recreation facilities since no new
residents would be located on the site. No impacts would therefore result and no
mitigation measures are required.
Impact XV-2 Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? Since no
recreational facilities exist on the project site, no impacts would result to existing
recreational facilities or opportunities. No mitigation measures would be required.
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 of
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? No. The preceding analysis indicates that
the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality,
including biological resources or cultural resources.
t;ity of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 29
Costco project March 1999
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? No. The project represents an example of infill commercial development
occurring adjacent to a major regional transportation corridor.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project aze considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects
and the effects of probable future projects). No, although incremental increases in certain areas
can be expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, air emissions,
light and glaze and the need for public services and utilities, the project site lies within an already
urbanized area.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the
course of prepazing this Initial Study.
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 30
Costco project March 1999
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager)
Don Ballanti (air quality analysis)
???, Rajappan & Meyer (traffic analysis)
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
City of South San Francisco
Jim Harnish, Chief Planner
Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner
Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician
Ron Petrocchi, Police Department
California Water Service
Chris Volonte, Superintendent
San Mateo County Flood Control District
Bob Frame, Senior Engineer
City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 31
Costco project March 1999
Appendix 8.2
Notice of Preparation
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 64
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Notice of Preparation
To:
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency:
City of South San FRancisco
Planning Department
31 S Maple Avenue
South San Francisco CA 94083
Contact: Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner, Planning Department, (650) 877 8535
The City of South San Francisco will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the
proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below.
Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on
permits or other approvals for this project.
Project Title: Costco wholesale warehouse development.
Project Location: East side of El Camino Real (State Route 82), approximately 1200 feet
south of the intersection of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. The street address is 1600
El Camino Real (APN 010-212-070).
Project Description: Construction of a Costco wholesale warehouse, associated 16-pump
automobile service station and up to 73,000 square feet of other retail commercial uses on the
26.7 acre site.
The attached supplement identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in
the Environmental Impact Report.
Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be returned at the earliest possible
time but not later than 30 days following receipt of this notice. Please send your response to
the contact person identified above.
Date:
Signature:
Title:
Telephone:
Appendix 8.3
Response to Notice of Preparation
Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 65
City of South San Francisco April 1999
Apr-06-99 16:26
Pacific Gas anti Electt'i~ Company
March 30, 1999
t t t Almaden Bnulpvard
P 0.9ox 15Q05
San Jose. CA 95115-0005
City of South San F~ rancisco
Pl~uininu Division
3 l ~ Maple Avo.JY,O. l3ox 71 1
South San Francisco, Ct~ 94083
Attention: 5usy Karin, Senior Planner
fee: ~utice of Preparation
17rati Environmental impact Itepurt
(:'ostco Warehouse development
A~~~
~- .
~ :_ ..
FL.~' : "
,•.~
P.02
Ucar Ms. Kalkin:
~l~h~tnk you for the uppc~rtunity to review- the. Notice of Preparation (NUP) for the
prolx~,ed C'ostco Wholesale Warehouse Ucv~l~rpmcrtt Pre~jcct. l'C;BtI:; has the following
conut:cnts to offer.
1'Cj&:L; owns and operates gas and elec;lric facilitiati ~chicat stn located within and adjacent
tc- the proposed project. 'fo promote the :,ale and rcliuhie rn.rintenance and operation of
utility facilities, the California Public l.~tititits C'ammission (CPI'C) has mandated
specific clearance requirements between utility tacilities and surrounding objects ar
urnstruction ~~etivities. To ensure compliance with these suand~rds, project proponents
Should euurdinate with PG&L early in the deveioptncnt of their project plans. Any
proposed development plans should provide for unrrstcictccl utility access and preti~cnt
easeincnt encroachments that might impair the sate and reliable maintenance and
operation of PG&F,'s facilities_
f)tvelopen will be responsible tI>r the costs associated with the relocation of existino
PG&F. facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities
r~locatiun's require long lead times and tyre not always feasible, developers should be
c~zcouraged to consult with PGBcG as early in their plannin t stages as possible.
Ftelocatian of l'G&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and
ahuve) could require formal approvtsi from the California Public iJlilities Commissian_ If
rcyuired, this approval procex~r could take up to two years to complete. Proponent.~r with
development plans which could affect such electric transmission facilities should be
referred to FGcYtE for additional information and assistance. in the development of their
project schedules.
Apr-06-99 16:27
P.03
We would also like to note that continued devcl(Ipment consistent with your C,cneral
flans will have a cumulative impact on YG&F.'s was and cloctnc systems toil msy require
on-site and oft'-site additions and impr«vemcnts to tiro facilities which supply these
services. Herause utility facilities art operated as an itttt:urated system, th~* presence of
an existing ~1us ar clcetric transmission or (listributi(~n facility (tests t(ot nCCCSSUri1~• mean
the facility ttls capacity to connect new loads.
Expainsion ol~ (lititribution and transmission lints anti rrlalod facilities is a necessary
cottseyuencc of growth and development. Tn adclitiolt to adding new distrihution feeders,
the rattgc ot• electric system improvements nredesl to accotnmodatc growth may include
upgrading existing sukrstation and transmission line eyuipment, expanding existing
5ubsitttiom to their ultimate buildout capacity, and huilding now substations and
interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or sciditions needed to
accornm<xiate additional load on the gas system could incaude !'aciiities such as regula-nr
stations, uduri•rer Stations, valve lots, distribution ctnd transmission lines_
We wOlllCl lift; t« recommend that environrrtental dncuttientS for proposes! development
pr~jtets include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility ~yscctns, the utility
facilities steeled to serve those developments and any potential environmental issues
associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. "!'his wiE1 assort the
project's cumpliancc with C;EQA a.nd reduce potential delays to the project schedule.
We also encourage the City of South San t'raneisco to include infortnatinn about the issue
of elrrtric and magnetic fields {EMF} in the llreft lrnvironmcntal lmpa(a ltcport. It is
PC~cL's pcflicy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMI'.
'`L•'iectric and Magnetic Ficids (1'?MF) exitit wherever there is electricity--in
appliances, homey, schools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific
consensus on the actual health effect. of >rMF exlx>surc. but it iy an issue of public
concern. If you have questions about EMI', please call your local PC~~E office. A
puckal;e of information which includes materials from the California Department of
Health Services and other groups will be 4ent to you upon your request".
1'GBtL' rcm~lins committed to working with City of South San l'ranc.isco to pmvide
timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electt-ic ser~•ice to project 3tea. Please contact
Alex F3autisttt at (640) 985-7338 if you have any questions retarding our comments. We
would dl5o appreciate being copied on Future corretipondt~rice regarding this subject as
this project develops.
Apr-06-99 16x29
P.O1
-hhc California C'omtitutii-n vests in the California Yub[ic Utilities Cammissian (i'Pl_I(=)
C!CCII[Sive power 1[ld sole ctuthprity with respCCt to the rcgulatiort of privately ~7~ined or
investor owned pub[ie utilities such s.K F'G&F.. This excltt5ive Power zxtcn~is to all
aspects of the iue~uion, dcsiLn. conswctiun, tnaintznance and operation of• Pubiic utility
taClht[CS. NCYCRh~llss, the ('Pt;t:' huff provisions fi.-r rcSutated utilities to +~•cx•l: clus~av
with local 6uverntnents Ina give glue Considere-tiun io their coneCms. PCi~~ mUSt
balance our Commitment to provide due considcrution to lur.al concerns with nor
obligation to pm~.'idc the puhlic with a safe. rcliahle, cost-effective eucrky supply in
comPliarx:~ with the rules a,tc! t~uifl's of the CPiJC'.
Should you rcquiro any ~dditio[ia! inli~rmation or have [any questions please calf me at
(40t;) 282-71 i)6.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Llatunich
Land Agent
cc: A.nautista
04/09/1999 16:45
`y~ [",.
~'
~~
~~ ;. ~
6508296639
SSF PLANNING
PAGE 02
TOWN OF COLMA 1190 EI Camino Real • Colma, California 94014
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: (650) 985-2590 • FAX: (650) 985-578
• ~ ,.-
r ~. .. .. ... . J
April 6, 1999
Susan KaHtin, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco Planning Div.
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Re: Notice of Proparation -Draft Environmental Impact Report - Costco Wholesale Warehouse
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
Thank you for inviting us to comment on the Nodcs of Preparation for the Costco Wholesale
Warehouse Development. We concur with the list of topics you have identified for analysis in
the EIR document. We request that the fdlowing areas of analysis be inducted within V-e
topics listed:
Transportation and Ciroulation:
The analysis of cumulative traffic impacts related to construction of the Costco building and
gas station, the retail development and the projected traffic impacts associated with the BART
station should indude projected traffic onto Hickey Boulevard after the extension, and include
recommended intersection design and level of service infom~ation at both EI Camino Real and
at Mission Road. The analysis should include impacts to roadways in the Town of Colma
especially where Mission Road intersects EI Camino Real. We request traffic counts at this
intersection.
We understand that BART wHl be oonstructing an extension of Hickey Boubvard-from EI
Camino Real to Mission Road as part of the BART to SFO extension project. We request that
the Draft EIR estimate the traffic that will be attracted to the Costco fauGty from Hillside
t3outevard and evaluate the need for the eastward extension of Hickey Boulevard from Mission
Road b Higside Boulevard.
The report should discuss use of the BART right of way east of the Costco sits. The Town of
Colma would like to see a strong landscape buffer between the Costco project site and the
vacant propeAy M the Town of Colma across the BART right of way to the east
The Colma General Plan anticipates the property behind the Costco site to the east will be
devebped for mixed use, with housing over retail or oMce. As you can appreciate, the Town
of Colma would like to assuro that housing at this site remains a viable option, and that proper
mitigatlon measures for traffic and noise are inducted within the Costco Development EIR.
04/09/1999 16:45 6508296639 SSF PLANNING PAGE 03
Notice of Preparation, Costoo Development, April Q, 19>i9 Pape 2
Noise:
The analysis of noise should address both ambient and project related noise, including all
noise from additional traffic generation, and commercial activities on the Costco site. Noise
impacts should be projected from the project boundaries with appropriate mitigation for future
noise levels exceeding 80 dBA.
Aesthetks, t~g~tt and Glare:
We recommend that the analysis include cross sections through the site and adjacent streets
with a discussion of any affeda on sonic views.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to receiving the draft
EIR when it is ready. Please call me or Michael Laughlin of our staff if you have any
questions about the comments in this letter.
Sin rely,
~k)~t.
Malcolm C. Ca ntQr, AICP
City Planner
Cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City Engineer
~. ~ ,„
Apr-21-99 13:36
State of Calltomia
Memorandum
Date Apc11 14, 1999
To V10S1C F3oyd
F~ro)c;c;t Analyst
State Cleatringhouse
C)ftice of Planning anti Research
14~~ Tenth street
Sacramento, C'A 95812-30)44
From C:liffartl L. Bowen, !'.). ~~/~F~------
District Engineer
Sou, Francisco District
[)rinkin~; Water Field Qperatiuns Branch
sua~.~t Notice oi'Prcparation of a Draft Environmental Tmpact Report
CC15l~c) W}lOlcsaie Warehc~utie DCVCiopnlent SC.IT/f 99Q32C147
P.02
Department of Health $orvlces
"1•he T)t;partmcnt has received a letter from the City of South Saud l~ranciscri re~;ardirt[; the
prei-aration of a draft F.nvironmcntal Impact Itc~art for the Costa, Whctlcsalt~ Dc;vclopment
Prgjcct.
Tl~-c project description includes the construction oi~a 16-pump at~tomohile scrviec station. The
Department is concerned about the potential lur groundwater ayui [t:r5 to bc: contaminated by
underground storage tanks. The South S:ui I~rancisc:o District of C3lifnrnia Water scrviec
Company, the t'ity of Daly City, and the City ot'San Bruno etch have rr~ultiplc drinking water
we11s that may bc: impacted by this project. We recommend that the City of South San Francisco
evaluate tttc potential impact to acarby existing drinking ~~~atcr wt115 and rtolity the t'esl~ective
water SystetllS of the project.
li'yotr have any c{uesiions regarding this maucr, please contact Ms. Mona Lee ;tt. (5lf)) 54p-21 i3,
cc: sic ricxt page
Apr-21-99 13:36
ce. lliv~isiim of 1)rinkinb W,tler and Lnvirunntental Marta~cment.
S1)WS1tP'-Hnvir. C'oorclin:~tvr
San Mateo Cuunty 1=.»virvnmcntal Health i)epartrrlcnt
Mr. C'rai~ tiilnlour
1)iru:tor of Water Quality
and )/nvironntcntal Affairs
~:alifornia Water Service C'omP~uty
1720 Nvrth First Street
San .1osc, CA 95112.45~R
Mr. Patrick Swcc:tl:uld
Dir~ct~r
Department of Water and Wustc~vater Rrsuure;cs
City <}f Daly City
153 Lakc Merceel Blvd.
Daly C.`ity, CA ~)4i)1 5
Mr. Scutt Chadd
Director cif Public Works
City ctf San Bnmo
56? Ll C'~minn Ttcal
Sai113runo, CA ~14gGG
P.03
Apr-16-99 15:12
0 4 J 15 / 99 '['HU 16 : S f E:,~7C Ba0 991 $0? 0
ECON d- CO1i DEYrpt,~ ~/ES
'~-~,
~~
CITY QF DAI.Y CITY
333-90TH ~TR![T
OA~Y CITY. CA ~1p1S1e~~3
rMp+[~ ibi01 p01 -!•000
April 14, 1999
Busy Kalkicy Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
31 S Mspte Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Re: Comments on Notice of Prepatation - prag Environmental Impact Report
Proposed Costeo Wholesale Wazehouse Development
Dear Ms. Kalkin:
Thank you for giving the City of Daly City the opportunity to canunent on the notice of
preparation for the DEIR and the proposed Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development project at
1t500 El Camino Real in Souhl- Sett Frmcisco. The comments oo the DEIR NOP and the project
are as follows:
Traffic end C.i_r >t~r~on
1. TraPffe on Hickey Boulevard would significantly increase as a result of the project, resulting
in added congestion at the Northbound ~ Southbaufd Hickey 81vd & I-280 interchange, sad
the Hickey and Junipero Serra Boulevard signalized intersection. As the Hickey Boulevard
exit fiom i-280 is the most ditbet route Goan the west to ucess the Costco project, the bulk of
the additional congestion would be felt by bath Daly City and South San Francisco residents
who live directly adjacent to this interchange.
The Costco use will generate heavy weekend trips ate therefore the DEIR's traffic study
should also include weekend peak analysis at the aforetnc~tianed intersections.
2. Coltrane maintAias the Hickey Bottleva>;d I-280 intersection, wtric6 will be heavily impacted
by the project. Daly City raluesta a written response from South San Francisco that Caltrans
accepts the tra~i'ic study for tlfe DE,Q2. specifically in relation to the Hickey I-280
Interchange.
3. The Ctity believes that some westbound Hickey Boulevard traffic 1~vta the project will bypass
the Hickey I-280 i~erchange. 'This traffic will utilize northbound Junipar+o Serra Boulevard
to access the northbound 1-280 interchange at the intersection of Secrarnonte Boulevard and
Junipero Serra Boulevard. TraA~te within this inter>rl~artge is congested and the addition of
Costca project traffic would fwther negatively izztpact this intersection. This intersection
P.02
~ 002
Apr-16-99 15x13 P.03
04!13ii19 Till' 18:32 F.4a 830 Y91 AQ7o fCOh ~ COY DE~'!Pt~ NKS 0003
Comb o4 D!.IR NOP Pate 2
Praporea Catno Wt+pksw~ Waret+aMM Dweiapsent Apr$14,1949
should be pact of the traIISe study for the DEiR. Furtcxsmor~e, as portiouA of this intersection
lies within the City of Colma, Daly City requests a written response from South San
Fras~isco ttaat both Cobra and Coltrane accept the tragic study section of tlu EIR,
specifically in relation to the Serramonte/luadpesn Soma Boulevard 1-280 interchaagc.
4. The City ha: a serious concern about the offoct the Costco devebpment project traffic will
have oa the Storage capacity of tba westbound left-turn lase at the Hickey i3oulevard/1-280
Lnterchange. This condition should be evacuated in the DEIR.
overall, the construction of the Coateo project will hacve negative traffic impact the reach
beyond ~e bovadaries~ of South San Ft~cisco. Intersections within the Cities of Daly City and
Colma, in addition to the I-Z80 inter+clun$oa at Hickey Boulevard & Serrarnonio Boulevard
which are maintained by Caltrans, wilt be adversely itrlpaeted by the inc,7ease in traffic
congestion fivm the Costco projoct.
In Daly City, trstTic along Hickey Boulevard in the vicinity of the I-280 interehaage is heavy and
the addition of traBlc from the Costco facility, which is a regional deatinatirni commercial use,
would further woisett the already overcrowded tretlic ca~nditians along Hickey 8outavArd.
The City of Daly City believq the tralHc study section of the Dt?IR should address the
aforementioned cammenta. Iu addition, Daly City requests a written response from South San
Francisoa that both Colma send Caltrans has roviewed and accepted Ehe tr~aftcc study for the EIR.
Fwtherenace, Daly City will require: mitigation of any siegative impact at City intersections as a
result of the project traffic genarate~ from the Costco development.
Rc¢ional Land Use Co tih:t;ty
Th~c City of Daly City believes the proposed Costco development is iacompati>1ce with the
regional transportation opportunities located scar the devebpment site. Witt the come;truction of
the BART Airpott extension and the prevalence of local bus service within close proximity of the
Costco project area, rosidential land uses would be better ae3rved for the project site than a
wholesale/bulk goods warehouse,
Goatee is a wholesale goods regional destination, in which bulk item curlsutnet purchases del sot
lend themselves to utilization of public transportation facilities. Thus, patron of the Goatee will
roly trtoro oil private transportation rather than t+eadily available public transit opportunities
within the project site to transport bulY item goods pu~,chaaes. The proposed Goatee
developrnest door sot support local or regional transit eflicieocies for location of both affordable
sad mixed-use horsing within close proximity of these public transportation facilities. 't'he
Dt:IR must address the ]and use compatibility of the ptoposod Goatee development gives the
public transit efficiency within the aces,
4-16-1999 3=32Pti1 FROM BLDG ENGR 650 829 6689 y P.2
.. .. .. aaa~• a,u • vi aMw, YJV o01 OUI Y ~.~UN ~ t;~~ D `~~]~$ ~$ ~OOI
.
Ceee~ w D61~R NO!
Propo~~d Castro W~~ Wae+a~o~ t 3
~ Aprfi 14, X~99q
ZI4180
T~ P'mposed Coatoo dcv~etoprnGat will resetlt is poteQtiaiiy sigctificant noise '
conatruetioa phase sad operation p~ ~~ . impacts. Both the
the DEIR. If the conodlection ~~„~~ empacts of the devetopnteat moat be evaluated in
for the pr+nject, negative »oise ' P~ ~~ and blasting ss pact of tha Foundation work
Miti lmpacta will be prevalent aw adjacent r+e~dential aei
Sa~oa measures for both the abort-terra co O°~•
must be included as part of the DEIR. ~ and ~ t~ operation of tkee projsct
'The DBIIt far the Costoo prof eci should evaluate flee project's impacts on the Colma Crealt-
Ciuadalupe Capyoa Stann Drainage Basin. A large area of Daly City sad Colms currently
drains into the ~ ! aQjactnt ~ El Camino ltzal into Colma
through South San Fr'aacisco to the San Frareciaco Bay. C~ea1c and ultimately
We would Iiloe to receive fow (4~ caopiea of flee Draft >rIR. Please
atteatiotl of Carlos do Mela, Associate P ~~ the copse: to the
larm-er, b~aiy City Plaoaing Division,
If you have sny questions or require say additions! iafioumation, pkasc contact me at y91.8033.
Sincerely,
~~~
Carlos de Melo
Associate Planiaer
cc: Jahn C. Martin, City ~
Mss
T~'Y Sodik, Dir+octor, Econasr~ie & Cortimuairy Development Deparmneat
Richard BmEer, Assistant Director, BcoAOnauc dot Commwnity Dewelo~pmeOt Depanmeat
Al Ssvay, Senior Plaruur