Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 General Plan Update Draft EIRSouth San Francisco General Plan Update DRAFT E N V IR O NMENTAL I M P AC T REPORT SCH NO. 97122030 JUNE 1999 South San Francisco General Plan Update DRAFT E NVIR O NMENTAL I MPAC T REPORT scx Ivo. 97122030 Prepared for the City of South SanFrancisco Planning Division by DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners JvrrE 1999 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of EIR ..........................................................................................................1-2 1.2 South San Francisco General Plan Update Process ................................................1-3 1.3 EIR Approach ........................................................................................................... l -4 1.4 Use of the EIR ...........................................................................................................1-5 1.5 Issues Addressed in EIR ...........................................................................................1-6 1.6 Public Review Process ..............................................................................................1-7 1.7 Incorporation by Reference and Availability of Documents .................................1-8 1.8 Major Planning Assumptions Used in the Environmental Analysis .....................1-9 Chapter 2: Executive Summary .................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Proposed Project ......................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..............................................................2-3 2.3 Alternatives .............................................................................................................2-26 Chapter 3: Project Description ..................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Location and Planning boundaries .........................................................................3-2 3.2 Background and Context .........................................................................................3-3 3.3 Objectives of General Plan Update .......................................................................3-11 3.4 Characteristics of the Proposed General Plan ......................................................3-12 3.5 Plans of Surrounding Jurisditions and Other Agencies .......................................3-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis, and Mitigation ....................................4-1 4.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................4-2 4.2 Urban Design and aesthetics ............................................................................... ..4-33 4.3 Transportation ..................................................................................................... ..4-45 4.4 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ ..4-78 4.5 Noise ..................................................................................................................... ..4-88 4.6 Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Facilities ................................................... 4-108 4.7 Flooding, Hazardous Materials, and Emergency Response ............................... 4-117 4.8 Police and Fire Protection ................................................................................... 4-126 4.9 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ..................................................................... 4-135 4.10 Schools .................................................................................................................. 4-142 4.11 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ............................................................................. 4-146 4.12 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................. 4-163 4.13 Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 4-167 4.14 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 4-188 4.15 Telephone, Cable, Natural Gas, and Electricity .................................................. 4-194 Chapter 5: Impact Overview ......................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ..................................................5-1 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ....................................................5-2 5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts .......................................................................................5-4 5.4 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................5-7 5.5 Impacts Found Not to be Significant ....................................................................5-10 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives ...........................................................................................6-1 6.1 Alternative A: No Further Development ................................................................6-3 6.2 Alternative B: No Project .........................................................................................6-4 6.3 Alternative C: Lindenville Emphasis .......................................................................6-5 -2- Draft Environmental fmpoct Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update 6.4 Alternative D: East of 101 Emphasis .......................................................................6-9 6.5 Alternative E: Transit Emphasis ............................................................................6-13 6.6 Comparison Of Alternatives ...................................................................................6-17 6.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative ..................................................................6-36 Chapter 7: Report Authors ........................................................................................................7-1 Chapter 8: Organizations and Persons Consulted ...................................................................8-1 Appendix A: Notice of Preparation ..........................................................................................A-1 Appendix B: Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ........................................... B-1 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................... C-1 -3- Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Updote FIGURES 3.1-1 Regional Location .................................................................................................. 3-4 3.1-2 General Plan Planning Area ................................................................................... 3-5 3.2-1 Evolution of South San Francisco's Form ............................................................. 3-9 3.4-1 General Plan Update Land Use Diagram ...............................................................3-23 3.5-1 Plans of Adjacent Jurisdictions .............................................................................. 3-37 4.1-1 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................... 4-3 4.1-2 Planning Sub-Areas ................................................................................................. 4-7 4.1- 3 Vacant Land and Major Projects ............................................................................ 4-13 4.1- 4 Current Specific and Area Plans ............................................................................. 4-17 4.1- 5 Current Redevelopment Areas ............................................................................... 4-19 4.1-6 Regional Agency Jurisdictions ................................................................................ 4-23 4.1-7 Airport-Related Height Limits ............................................................................... 4-25 4.2-1 Neighborhoods ........................................................................................................ 4-35 4.2-2 Neighborhood Form Analysis ................................................................................ 4-37 4.2-3 Viewshed .................................................................................................................. 4-39 4.3-1 Existing Street Classifications and Daily Volumes ................................................ 4-47 4.3-2 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements ........................................... 4-53 4.3-3 Caltrain - ALRS Connection Alternatives ............................................................. 4-56 4.3-4 Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................... 4-59 4.3-5 Major Street Improvements ................................................................................... 4-71 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.4-1 California Air Basins ............................................................................................... 4-81 4.5-1 San Francisco International Airport Flight Paths ................................................. 4-90 4.5-2 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area .............................................. 4-93 4.5-3 Road and Rail Noise ............................................................................................... 4-95 4.5-5 Projected Road and Rail Noise ............................................................................... 4-97 4.5-5 Potential Infill Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours .............................. 4-101 4.7-1 Draft General Plan Policies for Flood Protection ................................................. 4-121 4.8-1 Fire Hazard Management Units ............................................................................. 4-129 4.9-1 Schools, Parks and Open Space .............................................................................. 4-137 4.11-1 Geotechnical Hazards ............................................................................................. 4-147 4.11-2 Elevation .................................................................................................................. 4-149 4.11-3 Geology and Stratigraphy ....................................................................................... 4-151 4.11-4 Amplification Ground Shaking .............................................................................. 4-153 4.11-5 Intensity of Groundshaking from A 7.1 San Andreas Earthquake ....................... 4-155 4.11-6 Draft General Plan Policies for Seisimically Sensitive Lands ................................ 4-159 4.13-1 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 4-169 4.13-2 Historic Shoreline and Marshland ......................................................................... 4-171 4.13-3 Ecologically Sensitive Lands ................................................................................... 4-177 4.13-4 Draft General Plan Policies for Sensitive Biological Resources ............................ 4-181 4.13-5 Special Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals ................ 4-189 4.14-1 Designated Historic Resources ............................................................................... 4-181 6.3-1 Alternative C: Lindenville ....................................................................................... 6-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 6.4-1 Alternative D: East of 101 ....................................................................................... 6-11 6.5-1 Alternative E: Transit Alternative ...........................................................................6-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update TABLES 2.2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 2-4 3.2-1 Historic Population and Household Growth ........................................................ 3-8 3.4-1 Land Use Changes and Intensification .................................................................. 3-15 3.4-2 Buildout Population and Growth Rate ..................................................................3-17 3.4-3 Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout ....................... 3-18 3.4-4 Correspondence Between Required General Plan Elements and Chapters in the South San Francisco General Plan ............................................................... 3-19 4.1-1 Planning Area Existing Land Use .......................................................................... 4-5 4.1-2 Approved Development by Subarea, May 1999 .................................................... 4-12 4.3-1 Roadway Segment Levels of Service: 1997 ............................................................ 4-49 4.3-2 General Plan Traffic Estimates (Daily) .................................................................. 4-63 4.3-3 Local Roadway Segment Analysis (Daily Volumes, Capacities, and V/Cs)......... 4-64 4.3-4 Regional Roadway Segment Analysis (PM Peak-Hour Volumes, Capacities, and V/Cs) .............................................................................................. 4-67 4.3-5 Effect of Local Roadway System Improvements ................................................... 4-69 4.4-1 San Francisco Air Pollutant Summary, 1993-1997, Arkansas Street Monitoring Station ................................................................................................. 4-80 4.4-2 Estimated Emissions, 1999- 2020 ...........................................................................4-84 4.5-1 Aircraft Noise Projections, 1990-2006 ................................................................... 4-89 4.5-2 Land Use Criteria for Noise-impacted Areas ........................................................ 4-91 4.6-1 Average Wastewater Flows, 1998-buildout ........................................................... 4-109 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.8-1 Fire Hazard Management Units ............................................................................. 4-128 4.8-2 Summary of Fire Hazard Reduction Recommendations ..................................... 4-133 4.10-1 Schools, Enrollment, and Capacity ........................................................................ 4-143 4.10-2 Current and Projected School Enrollment at Buildout ........................................ 4-144 4.13-1 Special Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring within the City of South San Francisco ............................................................................. 4-173 4.13-2 Non-Native Invasive Plant Species that Should be Evaluated in Assessments of Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 4-186 6.0-1 Incremental Land Needs To 2020 .......................................................................... 6-2 6.6-1 Development Summary and Buildout Of Alternatives ......................................... 6-18 6.6-2 Alternatives: Employment Comparison ................................................................ 6-20 6.6-3 Trip Generation Estimates for New Development (Above Existing and Approved Development) ................................................................................. 6-22 6.6-4 Transportation Improvements ............................................................................... 6-23 6.6-5 Roadway Segment Analysis (Volume/Capacity) Ratio ......................................... 6-24 6.6-6 Estimated Pollutant Emissions ............................................................................... 6-27 Draft Environmental Impact Report for SoutA San Francisco General Plan Update CHARTS 3.4-1 Jobs/Employed Residents Balance, 1997-Buildout ............................................... 3-18 4.9-1 Existing and Buildout Parkland ............................................................................. 4-139 Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update I. Introduction An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a document that informs decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental impacts of a project. The California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the agency with primary responsibility over the ap- proval of a project (the lead agenry) evaluate the project's potential impacts in an EIR. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts and evaluates reason- able alternatives to the proposed project. A required "no-project" alternative discusses the result of not implementing the project or reasonable alternatives. An environmentally supe- rior alternative is identified as part of the process. This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the probable effects of policies in the South San Francisco General Plan Update.' Comments generated from public review of this document will be used to revise the DEIR and to prepare the Final EIR (FEIR). ` Throughout this document, the South San Francisco General Plan Update will be referred to as the "General Plan Update" or the "proposed project" Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update I.I PURPOSE OF EIR The South San Francisco General Plan Update consists of policies and proposals that guide the future growth of the city. The DEIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts of adoption of the proposed General Plan Update. Moreover, the DEIR is intended to assist the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and the City Council in reviewing and acting on the General Plan Update. The information contained in this EIR is also intended to assist the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in making de- cisions about changes to the City limits in the future. The EIR will also be used as reference for subsequent environmental review of specific plans; for infrastructure provision and indi- vidual development proposals; and for public facilities to serve new development. I-2 Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impoct Repori for South San Francisco General Plan Update 1.2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS The South San Francisco General Plan consists of elements prepared at various times. The Land Use and Transportation elements, which comprise the heart of the General Plan, were last comprehensively updated in 1986. As part of the General Plan preparation, several technical studies were conducted to docu- ment environmental conditions, and analyze prospects for economic development, commu- nity character and growth, and development alternatives. The first major step in the process to update the South San Francisco General Plan was the preparation of the South San Fran- cisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues (September 1997). It provides baseline information on existing conditions in the city and discusses preliminary planning issues for the General Plan stemming from the analysis of existing information, including documentation of environmental conditions, analysis of prospects for economic develop- ment, and evaluation and documentation of community character and growth. Other studies include an examination of freight forwarding prospects for the City. A series of policy memo- randa and several alternative Sketch Plans (1998) were also produced. Policy memoranda, sketch plans and working papers were discussed and debated in meetings and in workshops. The City Council and the Planning Commission were involved at key de- cision-making points throughout the process. Newsletters, display boards, videos, and com- munity meetings were part of an extensive outreach program to involve the public in the up- date of the General Plan. I-3 Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South $an Francisco General Plan Update 1.3 EIR APPROACH This EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the General Plan Update. Because of the programmatic nature of the General Plan Update, this EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR. As described in Section 15168(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR "may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related . . . in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to gov- ern the conduct of a continuing program." As a Program EIR, this document focuses on the overall effects of the General Plan Update in the Planning Area; the analysis does not examine the effects of site specific projects that may occur within the overall umbrella of this program in the future. The nature of general plans is such that many proposed policies are intended to be general, with details to be worked out during implementation. Thus, many of the impacts and mitigation measures can only be de- scribed in general or qualitative terms. In order to place many of the proposed General Plan Update policies into effect, the City would adopt or approve specific actions-such as zoning regulations, specific plans, or capital improvement programs-that would be consistent with the policies and implementation measures of the General Plan Update. This Program EIR will not obviate the need for envi- ronmental review of specific plans and individual projects subsequent to the adoption of the General Plan Update. As specific plans and individual project plans and designs are prepared pursuant to the updated General Plan, project-specific environmental review with a finer level of detail will need to be conducted. I-4 Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 1.4 USE OF THE EIR This EIR will be used primarily by the elected officials and planners in the City of South San Francisco as they prepare and consider adoption of the proposed General Plan Update. The DEIR and FEIR (which will include responses to public comments, following the 45-day comment period) will be certified prior to adoption of the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update and the EIR have been prepared concurrently; policies in the Update take into account the EIR's discussion of impacts and mitigation measures, so that the Update effec- tivelybecomes self-mitigating. The document will also serve as a source of information in the preparation of initial studies for subsequent planning and development proposals. Moreover, the DEIR will be useful in the preparation of revisions to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Capital Improvement Program, and other implementation tools of the General Plan Update. i-5 Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Updote 1.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED IN EIR The issues to be evaluated in the EIR were determined through a series of initial steps. A No- tice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for the DEIR on December 5, 1997, and the City received comments on the NOP during a 30-day review period. These comments helped identify the major planning issues and concerns in the General Plan Update, and helped es- tablish the framework and focus of the environmental analysis. The first step toward completion of the DEIR was an initial analysis of the environmental set- ting. This analysis compiled specific information on the current conditions and characteristics of the city, as well as major issues that the City faces. Topics of analysis included land use and visual character; community facilities and services; environmental resources and constraints; noise; air quality; and transportation. Information about the environmental setting provides background about relevant issues and is used to determine thresholds of significance and evaluate potential impacts. From the ini- tial analysis of environmental setting, as well as the NOP comments and public meetings, it was determined that the General Plan Update could result in potential significant impacts in the following areas: • Land Use; • Transportation; • Urban Design and Aesthetics; • Air Quality; • Noise; • Public Services and Facilities; • Environmental Resources; • Cultural Resources; and • Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. I-6 Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Froncisco General Plan Update 1.6 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Notice of Preparation (Appendix A), filed with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on December 5, 1997 (SCH# 97122030) ,was subject to a 30-day review period, which extended from December 15, 1997 to January 15, 1998. During this time, comments were re- ceived from seven agencies and organizations (Appendix B). The DEIR is open to public comment during a 45-day period, which extends from July 1, 1999 to August 15, 1999. Prior to the end of this period, the DEIR will be presented for comment at a public hearing. After the public review period, responses to comments on the DEIR will be prepared, and based upon the comments, any necessary changes will be compiled into an FEIR. Then, after reviewing and considering the FEIR and other evidence presented in the public record, the City Council will determine whether the FEIR was completed in conformance with CEQA and whether to certify the FEIR. City Council approval of the EIR would require preparation of findings pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as the filing of a Notice of Determination within five working days after approval of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). I-7 Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Generol Plan Update 1.7 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits documents of lengthy technical detail to be incorporated by reference in an EIR. Specifically, Section 15150 states that an EIR may " ... incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public rec- ord or is generally available to the public ...." Incorporated documents could be briefly sum- marized in the EIR and be made available to the public for inspection or reference. The South San Francisco General Plan EIR incorporates by reference the three documents noted below, which are available at the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Com- munity Development, Planning Division, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, Califor- nia, 94083. • South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues (Septem- ber 1997). -This document, also referred to as the Existing Conditions Report, pro- vides acomprehensive inventory of physical resources in the South San Francisco (as of the date of publication). Copies of the report were also sent to adjacent cities and other agencies, and numerous organizations. The Existing Conditions Report was used as one primary database for development of the proposed South San Francisco Gen- eral Plan. It also serves as the base for existing conditions in this EIR. Summaries of the appropriate topics in the Existing Conditions Report are provided in the environ- mental setting sections for each of the environmental issues under review in section 4 of this EIR. • South San Francisco General Plan: Sketch Plans (April 1998). -This document, also referred to as the Sketch Plans, presents several land use and transportation alterna- tives that were evaluated and presented to the public, and elected and appointed offi- cials. • City of South San Francisco General Plan -Hearing Draft (July 1999). -This docu- ment, also referred to as the General Plan Update, is the proposed project under con- sideration in this EIR. I-8 Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update 1.8 MAJOR PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE ENVI- RONMENTAL ANALYSIS The South San Francisco General Plan EIR is based on key assumptions, as described below. 1. This document is a Program EIR, and evaluates environmental impacts resulting from implementation and buildout of the General Plan. While the EIR identifies potentially significant impacts with full General Plan buildout, it does not preclude and, indeed, it assumes that individual development project proposals submitted to the City of South San Francisco will necessitate an independent environmental assessment in ac- cordance with CEQA requirements. The EIR is intended, however, to be used for citywide and cumulative impact analysis of subsequent project proposals that are consistent with the General Plan as well as other implementation activities outlined in Section 1.4. 2. The EIR assumes that all existing vacant land will be converted at General Plan buildout to the land uses identified on the General Plan Diagram. It is understood that development that occurs in accordance with the proposed General Plan will be incremental and timed in response to market conditions. However, interim "phases"-or development scenarios-are not evaluated herein, as they are not a part of the General Plan Update and would be considered speculative. Full implementa- tion of the General Plan to a buildout level defined as the mid- to high-range of den- sities permitted within the General Plan land use designations is considered a "worst case" scenario, suitable for EIR evaluation. 3. South San Francisco's Sphere of Influence (SOI) includes property currently in San Mateo County, but outside the City of South San Francisco jurisdictional limits. The proposed General Plan does not require these properties to annex to the City. It is recognized that annexation of property to the City of South San Francisco would re- quire Local Agenry Formation Commission (LAFCO) review and approval. However, the environmental effects of annexation of all land within the SOI are the same as for full General Plan implementation. 4. Cumulative impacts are defined by Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines as "...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts". The Guidelines allow the use of projections from adopted planning documents (e.g. general plans) to define an area-wide set of conditions for use in the analysis. The South San Francisco Gen- eral Plan, by its very nature, is a planning document and, therefore, the South San Francisco Planning Area will generally be used as the area for cumulative impact analysis. The environmental change of the proposed project would occur in the SOI where urban-intensity uses are planned (areas outside the SOI are planned for open space oriented uses). Cumulative impacts of the proposed project would also, there- fore, occur in the SOI except for some resources such as air quality which are air ba- sin-wide. Cumulative and project-based impacts would be the same, therefore, for the following environmental issues: land use; noise; geology, and seismicity; cultural re- I-9 Chapter I: Introduction Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update sources; safety; water service; wastewater; police and fire protection; schools; parks and recreation; and telephone, cable, natural gas and electricity. Cumulative impacts for air quality; hydrology, flooding, and water quality; water supply; and biological resources would, however, extend beyond the SOI boundaries and are, therefore, separately evaluated in Section 5 (under Cumulative Impacts) of this EIR. The cumu- lative analysis for the proposed General Plan can be used for determination of cumu- lative impacts of subsequent project proposals. 5. Project proposals located within the South San Francisco SOI, but outside the City's municipal boundaries (the unincorporated "islands"), are within the land use authority of San Mateo County. Without an annexation proposal to the South San Francisco, the determination for approval (or disapproval) of these projects would be made by San Mateo County. Any project proposal that includes an annexation re- quest to the South San Francisco would be processed for annexation through the Lo- cal Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) prior to, or concurrent with South San Francisco action on the project. However, any City action would become effective only upon completion of annexation. 6. Existing conditions are based on the South San Francisco Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report. It is acknowledged that, given the volume of data and topics addressed in the Existing Conditions Report, more recent data in some areas is likely to be available. However, the Existing Conditions Report provides comprehensive infor- mation, is sufficiently current and complete, and is, therefore, considered a reasonable and reliable resource for use as a database in this EIR, nonetheless, the Environmental Setting has been updated in sections 4.1: Land Use, 4.3: Transportation, 4.4: Air Quality, 4.5: Noise, 4.6: Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Facilities, 4.8: Police and Fire Protection (not included in Existing Conditions Report), 4.10: Schools, 4.13: Bio- logical Resources, and 4.15: Telephone, Cable, Natural Gas, and Electricity (not in- cluded in Existing Conditions Report). I-io Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update 2. Executive Summary 2.1 PROPOSED PROTECT The City has prepared a Draft General Plan Update intended to replace the existing General Plan, which was last comprehensively updated in 1986. South San Francisco is located on the western shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The Planning Area for the General Plan Update includes all land within City limits and unincorporated "islands" surrounded by the City, and encompasses an area of approximately 6,160 acres (9.6 square miles). The Draft General Plan Update contains guiding and implementing policies and fig- ures and diagrams that articulate a vision for South San Francisco that the General Plan Up- date seeks to achieve. The General Plan provides protection for the City's resources by estab- lishing planning requirements, programs, standards, and criteria for project review. The im- pacts from future development consistent with this Draft General Plan Update are identified and assessed in Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis, and Mitigation and Chapter 5: Impact Overview. The process of updating the 1986 South San Francisco General Plan began in early 1997. The first milestone was reached with the preparation of the South San Francisco General Plan: Ex- isting Conditions and Planning Issues (September 1997). The second key step in the process was the preparation of South San Francisco General Plan: Sketch Plans (April 1998), which il- lustrated schematic land use and transportation alternatives for the City's future. The pro- posed General Plan Update resulted from a combination of proposals in the alternatives. Its major policy directions have been defined through close involvement of the City Council, the Planning Commission, other boards and commissions, residents, and the business commu- nity, in all phases of the General Plan Update process. The proposed General Plan Update includes six of the seven elements required by State law (Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Noise, Open Space> and Safety). The Housing Element, which is also required by State law, is not part of this Update. As per State law, the next up- date of the Housing Element is required to be completed by June 2001. The Update also in- cludes three optional elements (Economic Development; Planning Sub-areas; and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services). The General Plan's nine themes, which provide the basis for detailed policies included in the Plan elements are as follows. (These themes are described in greater detail in Section 3.4 of this DEIR.) 1. Neighborhood-oriented development; 2. Economic development and diversification; 3. Increased connectivity and accessibility; 2-I Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4. Redevelopment of older industrial areas; 5. Land use/transportation correlation and promotion of transit; 6. Reinforcement of Downtown as the City's center; 7. Enhancement of community character; 8. Coordinated shoreline development and increased accessibility; and 9. Performance-based standards for services to ensure sustainability. The proposed General Plan Update includes a variety of land use classifications in more detail than the 1986 General Plan. These classifications include six types of Residential, four types of Commercial, Mixed Industrial, Business and Technology Park, and specified classification for Public Facilities and Services, Parks, and Open Space. These proposed land use categories have been updated to respond to the city's current planning context. This DEIR is a program DEIR that addresses growth-inducing and cumulative effects of po- tential development under the Draft General Plan Update on the area environment. Specific projects must be assessed per CEQA and the policies and programs established in the Draft General Plan. The Draft General Plan Update provides a framework of policies and programs to review, guide, and amend development proposals so that significant environmental im- pacts do not result. However, this Draft EIR is not an environmental assessment of the spe- cific impacts of any particular project on a particular site; these impacts must be evaluated in future environmental reviews of these projects. 2-2 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 2.2 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table 2.2-1 on the following pages presents the summary of the impacts identified in this DEIR. The table includes the summary impact statements and mitigation measures described in more detail in Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis, and the residual levels of significance after mitigation. For the sake of brevity, only the Draft General Plan Update pol- icy numbers and policy text are included; The listing of the mitigations in Chapter 4 includes the complete text for each referenced policy, including any programmatic actions that are part of these policies. It should be noted that policies and programs of the Draft General Plan Update are listed as mitigations when, in fact, they are an integral part of the proposed "project". This is done to clearly show how impacts from future development will be mitigated by the Draft General Plan, thus indicating the self-mitigating character of the Draft General Plan. The residual lev- els of significance for the impact after implementing the Draft General Plan Update policies and programs are all "less than significant" (that is, less than significant as measured against significant criteria established for each area of impact), "potentially significant", "significant", or "beneficial." 2-3 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update v u c v v c ~ bo .~ ~ v ew ~ 'w o N ~ N N ~ J D G O O. O N G e w G v H N 1=if ~ .o °~ E ~ Z c ~ .~ ~ _~ C 3 ~ ~ N l~ c~ c~ C h y 0 O c N ~' ~ v N ~ d ~ p ~ (/1 W c ro v w ' c ao c A L w h N J bq O~ ~ N O .S ~4 '~ ~ O >v ~ O ~O +_~ o~ 'ZS ~ .r0 oV'i p O ~ ~ +... bq ~~ .~ ~ ~ 'CS ~ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ "~ 3~ 0 $" ~ p ~ ~ ~ .~ y Q r ~.J ~ . ~ 3~ O ~w ~ ~ 7~ ~ ~ ~S 'CZ. v~ _ _ ~ ~ O ti ~ ~ ~ '_' O y ~0 O ~ v y ~ h ,~ ~ O ~ ~ O) -`tiu ~ ~ C ob ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y... x ~ v ~ 1 O ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ' , o) ^ ^~ r., O 0, ~ v i i ~ ~~ (y ~Ir "' ~ H ~ '~ O ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ µ.. H ~ 'Z O U ~ .C CS n ~ . O ~ . ' .. .. ~ ~ O 0 v~ ~ "' 'r b4 y O ZT O O) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. p b ' O O ~ p ; CS ~ ~ ~ ~ O i C c y T. y ' ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p> ~ ? W O 0.~ ~ ~ > U ww ~ ,,, o~ n~.. n... Gi ~ ~ ~ .~ H .."~ of T. a. .~ u d i". ~ C O O) ~ 3. ~ ' ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ oi`i ~ 'CS ~ -~7 ~_ CS ~ ~ ~ + .~ ~ y j V v x ~. y ~ a4 \ O y'n, O h ~ ,~ O+ _ Q m U + ... ~ , r O G "~ ~ ~ ~ H CZ ~ d O ~ O ~ ~ p,~ , ~ ~ O ~ ~ H ,",~ O Q ~ W ~-. y , , W ~ ~.. ~ Q o ~ ~ Q a, o ~ , W .O ~.. U ~ o, ~ M M M M ~ N M M ~ ~ L b0 d C O e0 . -N ~ ~ ce O ~ y X _~ ~ ~ 3 ~ N ~ ~ ~ 47 ~ ~ y vii V ~ ~ C !J N ~ ~ O ~ N C lC C . ~~ ~ ~ C 'a, • d Cl O ~ N '~ C ~ O ~ p C 'O L ~ f. L ~ ~ y J U E ~ a c A Q ~ 2-4 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update H i 7 N c~ L i~ i.~ 'O C aN~r a N N ~ F H a~ V C v c b0.0 ,o in p 4....bap O c ~ ` J O Q a a a~ G a N .'~i. v v N a S~ G 0 .~ w C N C 0 .~ c W Z `o a l7 ~, C ~ [O ~ u ~ .C :C 0o pp t%1 (n C C A ~ ~ L N ~ N N N N d ~ -~ J H H I O of ~ ~O c"'i "S h `n ~ O h O. O ~ ? ~ ~ U ~ C ~. ~ ~. O ~ ~ . ,., ~ O ~ CS Ci ' ~ ~' C ~ •~ % v ~ O ~ by ~ y ~ +.. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ y +" O ~ y '~ O ~ O ~ ~' ~ T; O ~ ~ ~ +". > ~. O Os_i O O> O 'O O O ~ O) "~ O) ~ ~-. }~ _ ~ ~ . ~ o s; ~. o _ .,,, o~ ? °~ ° ~ °' H of ~ o ~., 'CS ~ o> ~ rY +.~ c, ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ obi ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ "~ bo ~ ~ o ~ ~Y -~ ~ ~ ~- ~ W o o~ m d, }- o ' ~ ~ of ~ • ~_ ..n o~ ^' Y °,,' U ¢ " o~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ cam., ~ <y O ~ y ~ ~ ~ o"i h O ~ 'tf h '~ cs °c.,' zr ~ ~ ~ o m ~ ,z o • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 .~~ ~ . o ~ ~ +=+ O Obi O TS O y • ~ O O . C.p v~ ~ O 3C. +.. ~ .~ O ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ `~ `~ ~ DO ~ N u'i n t\ N cri N crj d O V d d N ~, O «+ ~ N C U ~ C d _ O ~ a 7 N L ~ ~ N ~ ~ _ C u ~ ~ H > i:+ ~ •X O ,~ ~ •L d aci ~ ~ ~ N N O ~° co p 'C V ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ d ~ 0 ~ u ~ ~ 2-5 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update L 3 h t0 d C h ~.+ a O N N ~c ~ G F- Vf a~ v c 0 U C C pQ ,O V] C ~ . by O > ~ ~ ~ J ~ C a a v N G w C 3 V N L O cN G G 0 o°o ~_ 0 a v d O c W .G Z .o a ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ .a ~ w "' ~ " 0.1 ~ ~ .C L V ~ ~ try ~ U ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ • ~ ~ ~ +'~.~ Tr .~ h '~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ' ~ H ~~., ~ .-~ ~.. . '~ O ^~ ~ .~ ~ ^~ O O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ '~ p~q O i ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~_ O w ~ ~ ~... ~ ~ ~ ~ C ` . ~... ^+ i7 ~ ~ y a^5 ~ .r - +... y Uj ~ ~ .. z ~ ~ ~ i a x .C p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O + .. ~ ~ O O ~` ~ y O O w /~1 i/f ,I.a y O ~ /' 'ff ~1 'H _ ~ UO • U ~` ~ ~ ~ .C' Q~ y..i ~ ~ ~ y.. Cl ~ Q ~ y '~-~ O ~n ~ .~. ~ ~ C$ •~1:i rl l W ~ ~ 0 O C7 ~ N N <'''1 c e~ V t: C b0 N C eq L a+ N J ~ +`n., ~ p ~ i s~ ~ ~ O O .~ v O h Q+ ~ C ~ ~ Q o o ~ °' ~- ac o o" H ~ 'V .1 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~ T + ~ ~ ~ '~ O o ~ . v G ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ G ~ .,'' i ~ O Gi O v~ , by •C U O '~ ,~ G y tv ~ °~ ~ o O) ~ ~. ~.. ~ ~., w ~ o ~ t ~ " $ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ' ' ~ ~ '.y O U ~ ~.. O ~ , p ~ .~ ~ ~ ..L ~ G ~ w o '~ o ~ y, , ~ , ~ C O v a ? y y~ C 0 ~ ~n U H ~ ~ O ~ ~ r',' ~: O ~ . ~ ~'' ~ ~ 01 ' ~ ~ '- O ~ O .C a" ~ '~ pa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . O ~ ^' r . .a . ~ ... y., y . N v~ y+ A. R.~ .C ~ no o~ ", b'O ~ '~ ~ raj ~` ~ w p .C U r ~'..y ~ ~ ~S _ 3~ ^ + o> ,~ O ~ of +_. b by ~ ~ Ci C$ ~ x ~ O ~' U 4 i,. 5~.. .~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 7. 'H .Z. 0 S y ~ w ~ H ti .~ W ~ Qr •... .C ~ ~ ~ UJ ~ N '=+ '"+ N ~ ~ M u L d ~ X ~ d co d V ~ pQ ~ L ~ a "' y y >. C H ea }, 7 O ~^ p L io fA O _~ ~ ~ C X L d N ~+ S y ~ s Q ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ • H ~ C QO ~.+ fE a+ V ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ N N no O ~ ~~ c a eri ~ y ca C y d ~ 0 0 ~ A ~~;N L ti c N'D~ pp ~ t'(O ~ V ~ ~ ~. O y c ~ _ ~ ~ ,, LL ..~- C .~ ~n ~ OV aL.+ A N ry ~ ~' 2-6 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update N d L 3 d E aN+ a N N c~ ~ c I... ~ a~ v c v v '~ c ~ ,o c ao o N ~ N ~' ~ v C v a v a~ G a N :~ G v H L H ~ Z O .a ._ .~ a ~ l7 ~i v n v C O .~ W c cv u c,-_ .~ ao in c L N d J ~ O ..~ ~ M ~' ~ ' o .~ ~ U ao ~ C o '~ o ~ d .~ 'Zs ~ a ~ ~ . .~, ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ a0 ~ by .-~ ~ v O ~ CS O i ' c~~i ~ y v o ~ ^~ ~ o "" CS ~ O ,,.,, ~ .~ ~ r ~+ ~ }~ ~ .C ~ H ~r ~ h y _ ~ °~ ~ ~ y o ~ ~ ~ . ~ .,.., 0~.1 ~ ,~ '~ `" G ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ '~ w C N . ~ H ~ ' V i~ O o N ACS U ~ . + ~ +~+ 'ZS O 00 ~ °' o b . ~ o o ~' c y y ~ N ~ • ~ i z o 7~ • ~ r.., ~ ~ ~ y ~ .C' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ y ~ 0 +~' ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ d S. ~ ~ U ~ + .. H H h ~ y 0 .C l' ~ ~+:a ~a ~ ~~ °' '` ~ °~ ~ o ~ '~' ~ U ~ b y + .. w ~~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o i o b ~ o ? ~, ..~ o b D x ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~, x ~ °' ry o i ~ ~ .~.; ~ ~ y •- ~ ~ ~ ~„ O y ~ ;ZS o C ~ ~ O) o "i ~ ~ ~ ~bq ~ h O i . p ~ ~+' y ~ ^V ~ ~ ~1~.a ~ w h ~ r; ~ w ti -~ ^^~ "~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [~ O~ ~ 00 (1 ~ V 1~~ ((1 V ~-. ti rl ~ V ti N N N N N N c ~' ~ C E ~ O ~ V 7 ~ ~ N ~ c a~ ~ E s a u O ~ ~ i a~.r ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ L Z ~ v L N t0 O d N t i f" M c w .C bQ N -~'~` o ~ oai ~ H _ G G w ~ ~. Cl ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ y ~ ~ ~ •U Q, ~ V ~ w }. U ~ "' y.. u ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~i . b4 ~ ~ y • ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~" '~" 7. 0.1 O ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~., o ~ '~ ;r .~ ,~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ti ~ ~!J ~ ~ ~1.. '~`~ C$ +a • O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q w.. ~ ` O ~ ~ d ' y ~ ~ O ' ZS ct.,~O~ ~ ~ i, ~ 0.1 $~ y, >. it ,~ o~ ~' ~ ~ ? ~ of ? j ~ ° ~ ~ ~ o % ~. ~ . c . "-+ N M n N N N N ~ ~7+ ~ ~ .G ' ~y c v H ~ ~ t d ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ O ~ ca is `~ ~ c v ~ ~~ N ~' A L O y ~ L A ~ !~. O ~ ~ ~ a~+ to ~ .,C C N ~ L b0 (n >.v L ys ~ a ~ cn 3 c V ° ~ a~ ~ .~ ~ A ~ a0i O C ~ O f6 y i d O A G. «~ N y a~ N C L~~ N N C •tC0 ~ O tL A N N E OJ ~b.0 LL d a t~ M ~' 2-~ Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update h i N ld cd G t. 0 !d r_+ '~ C tll ~+ a w Q N N ~ H H a~ v c v u c ~ on o ~ v ~,~ o a~ a~ ~ a c v a v a~ c l7 O a~ c S N L v e 0 ,o O il. Q N 0 .~ c W a -a E Z 0 a l7 ~ ~ ~ ~ y C ~ Obi O O ~~ ~ w z~ o ~ ,, ~ a, ~ ,~ h o, cs ~ C ~ O O~.p ~ ~ ~ ~ '.~:, O.i CS y ~ O O~ ~ ~. •.b.° obi ~ ~ ,~ o •~ ~ o> a ~, u v O ~ ~ ~? 'n, ,a0 vi ~ ~" ti ~ i C lG ~+ iS, y ~ ~• o ~ " ~ obi p ~ ,«.: _ o o r. ~ bo w~.a O ~'' CS y U ~ a0 •,~ ti ~ .~ y G ~ . ~ o ~ ~ ~ y o o ~ W o ~ ,~ ~~ o Q O ~ `'"~ ~ obi ~ by . ~ ~ O o +.. -~ °~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ y o~.i y ~ o~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ chi o~ +`.; ~ y c> ~ ~ • ~ c''i oi'i ~ ~ ~ .ia ~ obi es `'~ ~. '.~ ~ +`~ , o ~ • ~ o°'i ~ u o''i y c, •~ ~ ~ '~ ~ o~q ~ ~ o a, ~ ~ o ~ obi y ~. ci h U ~ E~-~ ~ [~~ ~. ~ cy ~ o ~s ~. W ~ ~ ~~ h U '.~ ~ W . ~ °p ~; N M et+ ~ t~ C7 C7 ~ -. ~ ~-: ~. N N N N N N N er v~ ~r v' ~r v~ ~r C .~ fC U W fV CO 01 ~ .-. u ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ y ~ O O y L.+ H N fOVf ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ L d 2-$ Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update v v e v v c o ~ ,o ~^ v eo ~ •~ o a~ ~ a~ ~ v G a ci a C 0 c v N h ~ c~ C 7 4. 3 ~ l~ N l~ !d O y '~ C N u ~ ~ a e ... O o N C N ~ ~ ~ O (A W +~ J ~ ~ I V ~ •.a ^ ~i..a '~ ~ O O ~ w~ `n .~ O U~ w `^ h A. O y i ~ y ~ ~ ~ y G ~ ~ ~ C) Z ~ ? ~'~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ .a ~ ~ ~ ~{ ~ ~ y ~ ~ O ~ •~ ~ ~ O) ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ v.a r-. N ~ y '(y ~ r V .~ ~ ~ j oxi ~ ~ 'ZS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~p y ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o obi ~ ,~ o '' .a °' -r ~ ~. • ~ o ~" .~° o ~ . ~ obi ' ~ ~. ~ ~ o~ '~ 'ZS o °' E-. ~ o by ~ ~ +r ~ o~ " ~., ~ O ", ~ .." ti H .. o A' "'a ~ ~ y '~ s, +-~ o}`i Q ~. ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,'~ fi ~ ~ ~ ago ~ ~ °', O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N M M ~'''~ 2-9 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update a~ v c a v '~ c ~ o ~ o ao ~ ~~ o a~ a~ ~ v C O a 0 a~ c l7 a 0 a~ ~.+ e 3 V N ~ ~ N ~ c~ G _` w e ~o ~ ?_ ~ 3 ~ ~ h d C O ~+ 00 ~+ f C ld N a+ u ~ ~ Q a E w O o ~. c N y N ~ d ~ p {% W ~_ ~ U O ~ in O ~~ .~: r:. h y Q ~ z •-. y ~y~ h C ~ 3" ~ C r.a O ?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C '~ ~ o~i ~ ~ ~ '~ p ~ O ~ ~" O ~ "~ ~.. O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~.' ~ H O - V ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ o~ ~ ~ ..D .~ ° ~ ~ `~ H ,~ ~ ~. ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~+-. v~ rte.. y ++ O) y O ¢ ~, ti b0 i- ;~ '~ v ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ v i ~ of s. ~i }~ ° s. ~ ~ ?¢¢ w~ 0¢ C7 h O~ a w q C7 U w ~, ~o ~. w 11 ~ M C7 ~, ~ ~ v~ ~r v~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ 2- 10 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update N L h !0 cd L O !~ L a O N N l0 ~ G a~ v c v v c ~ ~ o H a ~ '°-° o a~ N ~ v C O a Q c l7 v a~ N v N 0 e 00 G v a E v O ._ W .~ z a CL .~ c .~ c ~ ~ u v w ~ ~_ c 0o c ao N N ~ ~ N J N J O O~i ~ ~ y C ~ ~ '~ C '' ~ '~ '.~. ~ '" C O ~ O y ~ U ~ O ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ O y ~ . , +.. . , X ~ u b '~ ' ~ ~ Z ~ O i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.:. CS ~ , CS 0) ~., C W v, y O O ~ ~r ~ ~'~ "~ O ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ti ~ O ~ ~ O ~ . O ~ ", o~i ~ ~' ~ O . ~ O ~ i ? ~ 0?i U L O ~ ~" ~ •~ vi ~ ~ ~ d . H ¢ .C. bQ it ~ .C •• 1. mo .. ~ d d .~ ~ O y '~ O ~ ~ O •+~., U ~ ~ i '~ tO y h CS ~ +~ C L '~ ~ ~ w ~ ' ~ ~ Q' ~~•• `~ .. h ~ d ~ i e .. L ~ ~ • y ~ ~ O ~ M ~ ~ r. ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ '' w ~ V ~ ~' , ~ O O ~ O ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ d ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " y ~ ~ ~. . ~ ~' O o "i '" ~ . v ~ id. ~ H 'ZS . L ~Y ~ a .Y .~ ~ .~ ,S' ~ ~" ,L ' ..~ V ~ v O Ov u d -~ 'ZS , ~ ~ ... ~ ~ '~ ?O ~ ~ ~ y C ~ H .~. ~ ~ ~ +~. ~ ~ d 1 ~ +.~ d ~ ~ ~ +~.~ ~ +.., O O ~ ~' +O+ TS d i.. O O O +.. ~ . ~~ ~ H 'V O d O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '0 4~ , O 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .:, C7 C7 ~ ~ ~=. ~ ~, N M M M M M M M N d ~ C O d O ,,, O Y ~ _ O N C ~ ~ ~ H ~~ ~ C ~ ~ L N •~ ~ d d ~ N R7 ~ d~ a 3 L L ~ 0 A Q N f .G ~ C iy - C d N C~ C ~ ~ a~ ~ N L n A ~ L °~ 3 c L ~ ~ c . U C y~~ > C ~ L+ d '~ w a s N E 7 L o ° ° o l d~ ,~ 7 0 . ; d ~ O !- u ~ in t- .~ w E -v c ~ ~ U ['n Pn ~ ~ Z - ~ ~ Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update a~ v G v v ~ c ~ ,o N p bq 4.. •w+ O Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a h L 3 Yl ll! cd O b0 C h ++ a O N N c~ ~ G H N C v a O l~ d C C N 0 a~ 0 .~ .~ a G1 c C N C 0 .~ e W L d -c E Z 0 a i i ~ ..a ~ O ~ .~ ~ ~-L ~ o ~ ~ o `~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ " ~° U ~ I ~ H y 0 '~' 'n' ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U h h ~ ~~ o~ p ~ •~~.a ~ ~. °~ ~ .r y" ~ h ~~~ O ~ MQ, ~ bQ ~ 0 O ~ i~ -S; ~ ~ ~ *., ~' ° o ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~.. Q. y ~ ~ ~. ~ '~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ U n --~ M ~' 3 d a Q N C u c oo n C fd c N d J h .~ ~~ o ~ v Q ~a v O yy h ~ .~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q u -=~ i M l\ C tC U i.. • ~ ~ C r' '~ O ..' C$ G o~i ~ °~ ~' of o i ~ ~ • ° ~ ~s o .~ ~ ry No o~ .,.., w 'ZS ~ ~o ~. o oi`i ~ •" p ,,,, O ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~"" p ~ ~ y '~" ~ y ~ ~ ~ O ~ "' ' ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bq • ~' ~ y , , y,•, ~~ ~ ~ ~ '.a O ~ ~ ~~ ~:. ~ ~: o ? •~ • O ~ i. a~~~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ O y ,~ ~ ~ • J •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ '4~ ~ ~ • M ~ ~ ~ CS r... 'C ~ O 'a 'v M CQ H h ~ ~ O ~ •0 x ate.. ~ a'n. CS ~ 0 ~ " .Y ~ ~ y ~ 0) y U y . „ ~ w N ~ ti O ~ ~ ~i ~ •w ..a ~ ~ ~ ~ y '~ O) U O ~ ~ ~ rS b-0 O ~ ' ~ y ~ , ~ '~•' GY o~ ~ O) O x o~ oz`i •• U ~ .., y ~ O *~.. ? . ~ .~ CS 0) r .. ~ ~ •w u C ~ y p,p ~ ~ 00 ~ •~ ~"' U ms's ~ W ~.~ ~ o°'.o U ° ~ ~. U ~ ~ '•=~ crj ch M M ~ l~ l\ N Vf N L C ~ ~~ y 0 ~ eo d E c > 'O ~ p- .a C~ N O i O_ A~ L L C~ Q d v c •+ bo 'v d u ~ cuv •'~' a~ C ~ y ~ ~ A ~ m a~ L~ A d~ w O A L. C ~ p ~- ~ s~ N 4+ W O .c N~ O „c H y A b0 O -p i• ~ > y~ L O H y s V L F H N ~ N N iJ t ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~ c u~ j~ L L~ m~ A H c y Ou a~ ~~ >~ ao0 ~~ ~~_ ~~ ~~ o >> oz =Z t0 ~ ~ ~ Z- ~2 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environments! Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update N L N l{S c~ 'a+ E c C _~ W N N c~ ~ G v V G a v e ~ pq o ~ a ao ~ '~ o N ~ v J O c v a Q C a~ c v V N L v a~ c 0 v ao v a ci Q C a~ I` O G W t v .c Z 0 a l7 O ~ U ~ ~ ~ y X ~ ~ ~ ,r ~s ~ ~ U o c' ayi ~ ~ o~ ~. ~ o o ~~ O +a .r y O • .C .C C$ O O) ~ ~ ~ L y ~ u ,~, O ~4 U ~, , , i... ~ pq "" ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ems. y Q ~ ~r ~ o bo ~ y d ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ N w • : ~ ~ y ~ y + a ~' _ 3. ~ i ~ C v '~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ •~ 'w ~ ? ~ Cf a ' '~ y ~' ~ , ~ ~ zS U ~, ~ ~ +., ~ H te` C ~ ..a j ~~ .~. ~ . ~ ~ '~ ~~~' ~° y.a~ N ~ M i i i M M M L d c v d N P7 v v c 0 i f~1 O~ M Q' m v v M ri (.7 R rn nn ~ ~r N ~ d 'u era 0 ~ C A u c~ ~c ao h c cv L a.~ v J ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ r • ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~~ O ~. ~ ~ ~ ~' •y ~ z ~ ~'~ O ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o> z' w .~ 0~ ~" ~ O ~ -~ ~n y ~ ~ +~.. ~ 01 ~ ti ^V x 'O .. s; i H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Obi H z ~ ~ y ti r ~ o 00 '_~ ~ ~ ~ '~' .~,. H ~ N y w ~ .~ ~ :~ '~ ~ ~ U ~, ~ ~ o ~ S. 7~ U +:.~ lry Obi '~ ~ ~ y ~ O +.. ~ 7~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 •y •~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ O d ~ V V ~ H o ~ .~ ~ 'O z ~ O) ~ ~ •~ w h ~ ~; ~ U ~ _ m ~ U h ~ .0 x ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ +~.. ~ '~ V ~ ~ h h ~ ~ •~ ~ +~-, ~ . o ~" Q~ •a.. +.a ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ C .~ ti U O ~ ~ .'"a • ~ Q~ C;r o.~ ~ h •~ .~ h ~ ° ~ y '~ ~ ~ 'ZS •~ ~_ ~ ~ h v C"' O) ~ O •~ .~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ,,, ,~, ~ ~ ~ U 0 0.1 +.' ~ ~ y ~ z ~ ~ w ~ ~.H..o ~ '1y~a~ O ~ O) ~ o Z ~ ~ U ~ z ^ ~G o +„ .~ 'ZS "" vi ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J ti N L ~ ~ Q W d Q 0 O d ~"~ C d/ •L C ~ ~ y O C a a 3 c A ~ o ~ w ~ ~ ~ Z cd a -°'v ~ U v ea N u m O d as+ '^ ~ i a~i c y ~ Q ~ ~ ~ d H L C ~ w d N Z m to t!1 ~ ~ 2- 13 ti Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update t/l d L 3 RI E e0 '~ a+ a w N N ~ d H {A V ~"~ ~ C C v V Cr. yo ,O oC0 by H O N N ~ '~ A A O c L t c LA i~ ~ N ~ N J C J J U ~ ~ ~ ~ y 0 0 obi ~ " ~ .~ ~ O i ~ L N ~ ~`S o~ ti ~ ~ y c o. .~ T. ~..~ ~ ~ p O C ~ N ~ '~ N :.D S". 01 b4 ~ ~ ~ p ~ ? ~ ~ ~ vii U O ? ? S" h ~ ~ V ~ y ~ 0' O) G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ O LO N ~ ~ .~ ,~ ?~ ~ 01 ? U d „~ ~~ ~ H h ~O L N O O .C p ~ 0' h ~ .C 0.1 .~ 'D ~ o ~ ~ ~ O, y ~ p ~ •3 w ~ '~• ~ O ~ L U ~ .~.. D' c o ~ ~ ~., off' ~ . ~ o s; m 'w:., ~ 'zs o~ Z ~ ~ ~• N ~ ~ • o Cp ~o ~ o o~i c> ' ~ ~ u ~ O ~ ~ " . e~ c ao is o ~ _,.+ •~ ~ ~ ~-. ry d a ~ E ti '~ '=• Q C l7 ~ O\ ~ Z ~ a+ C v dr a"i d d N ~ ~ , ~.C H d ~ C L ~ ~ ~ `~- N H C •~ V f0 d ~ y eo d ~^ L A Y iv ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > V d d ~3 ~ m o .~ c ~ a~i ~, ~ N d to a.+ ~ 00 V _v C) d 7 N w N C C~ d X L O ~ F- N N~ N I"' u u aL+ C u ~ ~ V 0 •~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ u C U C b0 N C c0 L N d J ~ O ~ d ~ ~ 1 ~.. ~ bQ ~ o H • ~ .~ O O ~ ~ ~ r; o ~ ~ O_ ~ ~ ~. x C y " 4~ O i C ~ G ~ O ~ •~ w ,ZS ~+ Q' ~ 0~ O " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ O • O ~ X x ~ ~ • .O of ~ u'f ~ U ~ r ~ O~.p~~ ~ y ~ ~ w ty s: ~ m ~ :~ .O ti ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ L 01 +~ . C. ~ O y ~ C$ '~ ~ ~ if _ ~ . ~ H ~ ,° o0 0 0 ~O o U • o , . ~ ~ ~ o~ ^~ cy '~ ~ ~ o m o U ''"' ~ O "-' o ao U ~ ~ ~ °` ~ a. 3 ~ o ~ ~ a` .~ N ~ m • LL ~ i ~ ~+ V ~ H M M ~ d ` ~ ~ ~ `.- O ~ 'fl d d 0 a ~ •;~ ..c a°i y ~ aXi ~ ~ ~ ~ O d •N w ~ ~ ~ _ u D O O C ~ ~ ~ !d d ~ C L N -p V N 41 ~ ~ L L ~ i L QI L _ N~~ a> ~ O y L u a~+ ~ C 3 ~. .~ O O Q >. e0 ao u~ i d >. V ~ a ~ d O~ ~ ~~ ~ L O fd y ~ ~ N ~ y ~^ C O W N ~+ ~ ~ ~ C A Y !11 3 C ~ L ~. A X . ~ ~ O V ~ ~ ° ' U °~ 0 c ~ c i ~ c > a d d y ;= > y C ,,, T~ O v L am d ' y ~ eo ~ e a V ~ C t O F- ~ .: > Q r0 3 cLO L ~ 4+ ~ ~ u .O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r v v 2-14 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Drafi Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update N i 7 H C O ~+ C tll Y a W 0 N N ~ d ~ H a~ v c 0 v c ~ ~ ,o ~ v ao ~ -.r o > ~ N ~ .I d G O v a~ c O D a~ c v v U L v v c 0 a°o :~ a a c v C 0 .~ c W .c Z -o a c ~a u ~c no in c A L u C/ J ~ ~ U o O . K ~ O O . u C o U ~' ~ G '~ ~ "~ oi"-. ~ .~., O bq O) ~ U ~ p ~.. ~ - ~ bq Cl ~ 0~ O ,~ O V H pq O O 0> ~ O i' ~ ~ ~. ~ b~q ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ '~ ~ ~ L h ~ ~ ~Nr .~ • U ~ p) ~ H C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C ~ O ~ +-~ Oxi C ~ C bq ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ H p N ~ ~' ~ ~ ~, `~'> o ~ h o ~, x ~ ~ o~ ^.~ cl, o ~ 0 0 O '~ ~ ~ ~° U +~.. ice.. `~' y ~ pq H o ~ C' ~ ~' ~ ~+:. ~ ~.. U H ~ U .C ti o~ ~ ~C ~ ~ .C '~ ..fl •V .C •~ ice.. y" ,Y '~+ ~'~ ~~.. •..' ~ C/~ ,~ r.. a.a O O c, '~ ~ ~ .,,, H _ _~ ~, o~i ~ 'ts .~ ~ .~ of y ~ '~ ~ ~ obi GL, ~ '~ ° ? ~ ~ U o ;,~ c°'.~ obi ~ o .a ~o~i • ~ ~ ° :~ ~• ~ ~ fi obi ~ . ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~, ~ UU/ o '°'' o' ~ ° ° o ~ 'w o, ~ o o ~ ... ~ ~ O ~ ~ coo ~ ~ ~ o ~ ,~ ~ 3. ~ 7r ~n U V .O 7. y~ O ~ CS O a, w a. w ~ 'w .~ ~ a U y ~ U •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ a .~ ~ C7 ~. C7 C7 ~, C7 ~. M ~"1 M N N M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ri ~ ~ c ~ `~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ d i= a u dl C ~ Cd/ L C 0 L 0 '~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ L ~ d .L Z f° 3 ~O `~t 2-15 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update h L 3 N !~ L 0 coo i N i+ a E N N /d ~ C ~" (/~ v = u c ~-' c u rr c v o ~ _ ~ o o~p ~ ono H o in in in O ~ ~ S L ' L ~.+ ~ y N ~ ~ J d ~ ~ J VI J N J H I 1 I~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ° o Q o ~ b ~ x a i i o .. o ~ O ~ G ~ °' ~' " ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ K ~ , o G .s ~ o ~ G -~ ~ ..ae .1.. _ ~ " ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ G ~ W ~ •° ~ ~ o~ • V H ~ ~ " ~ Oa ~ ~ ~ ~ y G y ~ bq +' .+ ° ~ ~ ~ G ~ C o~ ~ ? "' ~ TS X ~ . ~ --~ G A' bq ~ ~ ~ p O ~ ~ O) ~ O p C) .~ O .7 ~' ` O °- ~ N ~ h ' ^ b ~ o ~ ~ ~ o 'tS O . O.i r y U h ~ Ci, v W O ,,, .+.. o i O h O) ~ . ~ ." G G O 0) ..: G ~ o~i 3 ~ ~ ~ `~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ •~ Q a~ ~ j ~ s` ate, bq _ , G +., O ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , e~ ~. G • ti oyi O p ~ p n o i 1 O ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ C ;~ ~ .G '~ y H U O ~ Q-. ^ `~ ~ . G ~ ~ G ~ ~ V ~0 N ~ ~ ~ f0 p ~ G y w .. ~ O S. ~ ° ~ ~ O 3. Q O y~ ~ O> +. ~ , y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ w .c a+ ~ W of I ~ W G G ~ L7 ~ 1 Z N N O ~ y N a ~ ~- a ~ .~ ~ -~ ~ 1 ~1 1 ti ~ 1 -. 1 ~ M n'1 M M M ~ l7 n- d try h h ~ ~ ~ i N fC L C ~ ~ y °1 d -o O ~ d ~ 3 ' +' ~ L ~ L ~' v -a ~ ~ a ~ m i d ~ o E 3 er ~ 3 d ~ ~ u ~ a i o p ~ X , , °,,,' !V ~ QI L ~ 1= V C G ~ ~ C ~ awa 00 N ~ U d n' d N d c0 a d a ~ a o ao 3 O ~. s5 ~ ar ~ .._ o d ~ o~ ~ L ~ ~ '~+ d~ w v O_ ~ ~ d co ~ d m .+ '!' c ~ n ~ -° Lo .v c v E 3 a '~ °' a v ~ ~ d d a~ L y [d ~ • ~ N ~ t ~ a. ~-' Z a °i' eo ~ `a~ LL u tL 3 v O E a~ C V ~ d .p .p ~p ~ ~ ~ W 2- 16 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impoct Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update u +' ~ c v ~ v u c ~ ,o ~ in v in c .a c ro ~ s a~ ~ a ~ s` ~ o ~' +.. '~ '~ ~ w ~ °q °ei° U ° ° o"i ~ y ° ~ o O ~ 'yam ~ .,~, O OUi ~ H ~ ~ U ~ ~ O > O O O 3". ^Y O ~ ~n ~ O Opp ~ ~ O O 0 Qy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U .~ ~ O ~ _O C ~ ,~ ~ ti v . ~ ~ ~ ' bq ~ o~ O~ ~ ~ U ~ .~ O .r h o, ~ ~ z 'ZS ~ a" ~- O '~ O ~G ~ CJ ° ~ ~ ~ '~ - ~ y ~ Ct 6) U p G O O ~ h h ° obi '~ ..°~ •° ~ o ~ a ° ~ •~ ~ ° `~" ~ C .~ ° w ~ ~ ~ ~ c~i ~ °~' ~ .sC~`~ y ~`~ o y ~~ ~... ~'u S O obi H c ~ ao ~ ~ ~ ~ o co o~ c ~ U ~ ~ ~ ° W ~ ~ ~ ° S ~ '~ °' ~-° ~ ~ °~ h ~ ~ ~~~a .rte ~ ~ ~~ ~ 3 »~, °' v ~ O ~ ~ ~ Z oio _'G' ~ '~ O~ ^~ N M N M ~ ._~ a ~ crj W N N N N N N 3 ~ l7 ao 00 ~ o0 0o ao 0o ri ri ~ ~ d vi _ c L (~ ~ ~ w N S ~ O u C C ~ N •~ N C ~ ~ Q) •V ~ ~ ~ N ~ y~ ~ y= C C R~ L ~ b0 O L ~~ d y '^ O bo ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' O c. ~ d ~ A N L a 0> ~ L N C V y ~f0 3 O ~ fC ~ d0 1Q f. > v~ Gl d C ; L ~ .C ~ d O ~ ~ ~ is u F" ~ -o 'v ~ a~ O u c 3 0 -p i fA O ~ u ~ a C +' t, ~ y ~ ~° cd w ++ ~ ~ aXi ~ 2 ~ ' a~ ~ ~ ~ ai °/ O ~ ri d O ce c0 00 d N v u C L co e0 O X d ~ 'v ~ ~ eua~ C ~ v yy •~ '~ c u ~ Uar ono c L ~ ~ ~ O L V C N N~ O I L C ~ ~ $ 7 a+ O 7 O~ i O L L QO L 3 N~ c ~~ 3 a ~ -L ~> O ~ u u .~ ~~ 2 ~ ~ N O ~ ~ A ~ ~' '~ .p 2- ~7 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update H i 7 H t0 d C 0 l~ 00 h i a 0 N !V c~ ~ c H ~ a~ v c a v '~ c ~ o ~ a as ~ •«~ o a~ a~ ~ o c a a a a~ l7 ~. a O w __ u N L v a~ c 0 o°o a 0 E C W O 'c W i .a Z 0 a l7 O ~~" O ,r ~ U O ~ ~ .r ~ "~ ti .~ ? ~ ~ H '~ N '~ r tti v y ~ .~ y- y ^~ Q' ~ O y U ~ ~~J N ~ ~ T. v... O) Q y ~., ~ v~ +,,, O ~ ~ h O ~ O ~ O> ~ ~ ~ r... ~ p .~~` ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ x O ~ CS sr O ~ v~ ~ Q, ~ y ~ +.. +.~ y ^S - 0) ~ O bq ~ O ~ ~-1 d ~ ~. ~ Q ° ° C, ~ C .~, N a 'u ~ c, cs o~'i ~?. ~ ~ ~~ N ~L H _ ~ ° ~ ~ d ~ ~ .~ '~ O .Z 'CS O '~ ~" ~' .C •."'.. H v +' O '~ ~ a.+ ~ Q` '~ O"i ~ ~ iS, d `~ .r ~ obi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ao p ~ ~ ~ ~ o . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y '~ o ~ N "' i ~ ~-. N M <Y+ i C7 C7 ~, ~ ~, ~ C7 M M M M ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L y ~ d W C~ N ~ bG ~ C N h ~~ do a 0 H ~ C C O O •~ %a N t A C ~ .IC d OV •~ 3 d d N .d h ~ ~ .C L O c ~- y O L 3~~ d C 0_ O~~ '~ ~ b0 ~ X" w w i d V d L o N d E~ a d L~ o~~ c L p 0 0 u ~ U •~ j d d ~ d y~ L ~ ~ ~ e0 ~ C V C 7 0 L > C~ e0 ~ Lp 7 'C .~ v~ d N V L ~ d ~ C .(q Z ~ A L~ L O L L b0 V yy •3 °J d E y y ~O tE C u 0 .y O a+ y p w L 'Y L .C C N •X ~ L `~ ~ d ; a ~ ~ c ,~v ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ d 'o i o ~ ° o' 1° a~ O E '..+ a~ ..+ ~ Q ~~ L CC .r. u E> u ri 2- ~$ Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update v c a U '~ C pa O v ao ~ •a o v ~ J Q v a a a~ D a~ c v v N L N ~ .p aai ~ ~ Z c ~ a ~ ~ d «_, 3 ~ l9 h Rt d7 0 c~ L LN+ t~ L v O a ' ~ c N y N ~ d ~ O F (% W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ,~, .~ ~ S. ~ ~ •~ i~ ~ C) O o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° N _ ~ •U U L..,` {y N o ~ ~ ~ ~ °' ~ v ° o +.. ~' +.. +., ~ ~ p '~ ~.. ~ o ~ o ~ ^. K'`j ~ ~ +.. o ao o> °~ .C H ~ y ~ ~ '~a ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~., „~ o O ~ ~ ' c:, oly Obi d0 ~ ~ •+:. ? ~ y •~ b0 t. ram„ y ~ ~ .C es +~ ~ °' ~ ~ o ~ ~ o''i o ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~~ U O O N O ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •V h fit" ° • ~ o ~ O) •~ h .C .C obi +'~.. W ~' ~ U ~ ~'~., ~ ~ o •-+ N M C+ ~=. ti ~=. ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r1 h ir7 ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ N d ~ L () y y N ~ ~ d ~ G/ ~ d0 t0 L v~ ~ t w ~ u b 4. V •O y ~ C V t0 N ~ C y ~ ~ Gl p ~ s `` ob V 3 w C ~ ~ ~ Y ~ N w •C t0 O Q O w ~~ c b V W C d0 c t N J 0 u 0 a i C l~ Y d O ~ ~ ~ ~ bq ~ H +~ Z ° ~ ~" ~ ~ o ~ ~ • + w ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ •S.. N ~ •w ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ v 0) ;L u ~ N O ~ O> ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ' U .V.. ~• S"• yo • ~ ~' U ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ .~ ~ ~ s. o o ~ o ~ ~ 0 " o bo ~s . ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ +., ° ~ ~ o> O y 7~ U U jy ~ ~ o °' ~ ~ ~ .~ c°' , o .~ • ~ , °' ~ ~ ~ ~ o o~ , •o ~ ~ v ~ ~ o . .oo ~ ~. ~ ~ , ~ 4 ~ ~ '~ ~ . U ~ ~ ~ ~ _ x ~ • U ~ 0. d a w i~ Q i~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ h aD ~ cV M ti ~=. ~ ~ h 00 ~ ~ d G/ ~ L V •~ N a~ ~ L C t8 iJC 1= ~ C ~ d ~ d V O ~ ~ O L_ ~ ~ ~_ y 'C u !'0 Z a coo A 00 2- 19 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update H i 3 d E E C lC N ~+ a N !V C~ d G H N a~ v c v u "c ~ ~ o ~ v ao ~ •a o ~ ~ J ~ a a O N C l7 O a~ v a~'i 0 .a ,a V 0 Q G N 0 .~ c W ~ ~I ~I z 0 a l7 .~ c c~ u .~ 00 in c co s ~.+ N ~1 J ..~D Ci O ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ O ~ O ~ ~ + G V O ~ bq +., bG , ~ 0) o~ N ~ r; ~ y ~ jy ~.. C .C ~ bq ~ ~ v A. ~ O ~ ~ O O> ~ U ~ ~ rx... ~ p ~ 0 .1 y U ~ y` N '~ ~ ~' o~ ~ LY ,~ ,? O ~ ~ ~ . "~ O O ~ (~ v o~.i ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~++ <n +O •O y ~ ? ~. ~ O O ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ t O ~ ~ H ~ .r y ~ O "" '~ CS. O ~ O ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ y CSC N ~ ~~ C ~ ~ ~ o~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ^s: p . obi ~ ~ Cy ~ _ O O N ~ O> ~ y ~ v . . ~ ~ V y ~ ~+:~ ~ ~ V O ~ h ~ ~l ~ h ~ V' ~ ~ ao ao ao co c L ~ 7 •~ N L ~ .~ ~ ~ L 7 L ~ V vii L 0 C d L d ~ Ci a ~ ~ O d N 7 ~ L C V f0 ~ c ~ C Z ~ ~ c ~o v r: ~c 00 N c ~a s a+ N d J fC a+ u ca a N C d N u_ O a L ~ ~~ d D• N ~ V L X N ~_ 7 C O C V ~ F.r td C d w O .O v ~ ~ L ~ O Q. l0 a3i w ~a Z iC A c u w .~ ao c c~ s u N G1 J C ~ ~ G ~ {S, ~_ }. ~ ~ ~ U .~ ~ ~ ~ O w ~ ~U ~ ~ H ~ p~ O ~ ~ o> ~ ~ ~ ~ O .y ~ y ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ :.. h .O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.a O ~ ~ c~i v ~ ~ ~ +... O ~ y '"' \, O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ C ~ v 'ZS C CS '~" y ,~ U ~ .~ ,~ O oV'i O M ~ H C h ~ ~ ~ ,~„ ^~ O) L ^1 ~ h rV ~+ H ~O ~' o p, .~ ~ ~ ~.~,~ ~ • ~ i.. ~ ~ ~ '=, ~rj u a H C a l~ C ~+ i v t/1 Y L l~ d ~, ~ E A d ~ U ~ fd c~ d L C O d ~ ~ a+ a~i f° d C ~ L d Y d ~ L ~ 41 4..~ N d ~ d L L 'a+ 3 t •~ LL H ~ ~ u ca ao ao a o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-20 N ~=. ~=, ~n V N ~V C !E C /0 N N O N W 0 N d d O d h b4 .C O O h Ol O .~ U ti .~ O o~ q ~=. Sri Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update N i 3 N l{1 y lcd C a~.+ ca G Q N N ~ d ~ H a~ c v v '~ c ao .°_ ~n o ao ~ •.r O N ~ Q7 ~ a G Q a N G D 0 V C 7 V ai 3 W O .~ aa`o ~_ a V G N G 0 .~ W L .C O a x ~ ~ ~ O ~ C_ •~ Q 'O ~ y 'w d ~ ~ ~ ~ o y N '1" ~ ~ U ~ O U L ~' O ~ ~ ~ y_ ~.: .Y. •~: ~ ~ $'. .~ N ~ ~ O U ai ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ +-. ,~ y h ~ ~ ~ ~ ti c ~o u c~ .~ ao rn c f~ L u N Q~ J I H w ~ r1 • U_ ~ ~ O 3' O H ~ ~ U ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ • ~: .U o ~ • .~ ~ ~ ~ "w O ~ }rr ~ i. yx.. ~ ..ate ~ +~; ~ O ~ ~•r~ r.. ~ o ~ ~ H O O .U N .r oNi o> •~ ~ ~ ~ •O ~ ~.. O u '~ ~ ~ ~ '~ '~.. o°'i ~ ~ v.. S. •~ ~ .i .o O ti i N u'i 0 s u H ti N u'i ~~, a~ ~ u L ~ N fL! d y L N b0~ O~ ~ y N Q t0 ~ N ~ N v U C ~ ~N y C ~ ~ E v ~ O " A C H ~ 0 ~ o ~ o .~ ~ 'V Z ego ~ ~i c u L •c ao H c fd L N J N ^ ~ O U .C ~, ~ ~ •~ -~ r' ^ o~ ,~y ~.a U V ~ ~ V CS ~ p -~ h ~ O O y+ ~ O vi U • N ~ 0 ~ y N C O ~ p '~ _~ .'~ ~ O C i • ~''~ O ~ ~ • ~ O y ~r ~ U -D ?~ O ~ O h Q ~~ am ~ L ~' U ~" ~ y .. ~ <3. `C CS a ~ N ONi • bQ U ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ o y ~ .~ ,~, o~~ O w u ~ ~ y ~ ~, ~ F' ~' N • ~ ~ ~ }~ y '~+ N ~ • 0p N x ~' ~ ~ b0 ~ ~ ~ v b C O ~ N U ~ ~ ~ ~ of q ~ , O ~ O.~ i O ,~, °O Oi Oq ~ '~ ~ O bq O (~ X O d v 0> ~ N -~" .Z. 0> ~ ~~ LYi ++ O • ... i ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N Y ~ ~ a- d ~ w O L '~' O N c0 N L 'C ~ ~ O V C L N L d Y Q. ~ ee 3 i 3~ C QI d _~' L 0 7 N d A d~~~ ~ C ~ L O N y C V •~ ~ ~ H dl L N 7 _ ~ ~-CU O ~ N ~ 7 y •C V ~ O u X U X~ C +' ++ ~ p O d v ~ d VI ~ y ~ ~ > y~ H ~ i N ~. V~ L L V V b V •G/ d C ~ 7 N '~ C C C C A~ N d C. A 0 .c C N N O p ~ ~ Q' `~t 2-21 i ~.. C 4> O .~ U 'CS .~ .~ ~ y O ~.. '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ L O O ~ .~ w •~ ~=. •-. c u c~ .~ ao N c A L u J A u U Ct2 d .~ L d C 7 d M C [C N d •u O a y a~ O ~ i ~ O Q ai ~ ~ a. ~ ~ N ~ N_ (n ~ Y d •~ L L ~ ~ 0- O Z' N ~ Q .~ ~ w ~ ~ N O •D L ~ w ~ d ~ O O •~ u L ~, N L O ~ v ~ a o 3 ~ ~ C V ~ ~ LL L N C ~ N W •V R Y ld ~ C ~ L ~ L ~ C ~ ~ LL L ~' Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update a~ u c 0 G = ~ .O c ~ •a o ~ ~ ~ v N i 3 N !Q ii C N a 0 N N ~ d H G D a v Q~ 1~ V v u C v v 0 c~ G c 0 a aco a 'a c a~ C O .~ W a Z •o c eC V C 00 N c N Q1 J ao C A f6 Cd C d C 7 N fh c N i ~ V y (7 ~ L ~ ~ N ~ d ~ •u ~ w N y G/ y ~ ~ it ~ ~ O !O A ~ O a L •~ 7 d w X d 7 ~ d N W V L~~~ Q •C L ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ .~ L O ~ O y0 ~ N ~ 7 10 ~ 3~ ~ ~. ,= c~ v ao 3 y~~ L ~.+ b y~ c c v to a •3 i -O vi -~ S Nt ~~ ~ Q ~~~ F' R '~ a~ d~ ~ O N A N L D a~i c ~ c O L vi a~i C _ ~ ~ ~ ~ A j ~ u 0 •y d f a~ o~ a d ~ o ~, ~ s L d > ~ _ ti u vii a c`e i I- u. oo vi T+ v ~ '~ ~ c u G d0 c N QJ J 3.. i d ^' ~ ~ ~ w h ~ C ~ ~ s= ~, ~ ~ q • ~ ~ o bq ~ '~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v v `f.G .) ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ o GY i ~ ~ `ter x O ~ v ~ ~ • ^U' U U .. w ~ y 5_ • `~ ~~~. ~ bq Ci ~ ?~ w .a ~ ~ 3. Ov 1Z., v ~ ~ ~ X ~ uj h Iwo ~ ,~ ~~ ~~ - ~; ~ ~ CS ~ ~ ~ • u ~ s.. ``~ ~ O) +-~ ~ ~' ~ O ~ O y ~ X •~ ~ ~ •.C ~ r U ~ ~ W u Q ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~-, N `~`~ ..., N C~ C7 C7 -=~ ~ N N N N N H ~_ ~ y L O ~ 7 ~ i- H L ~ ~ L V~ Q~ L L Q a~ c vi ..+ O ~~O O oo°'~~ W J C L C L L a~+ L 3 C 3 0~ u~ ~ "O A d C ~ C H H ~ Y 7 A O cce ~ `v o ~ ~ ~ ? o ~ ~ c N '.+ ~ 3 O N L d 7 ~ b0 L .L V ~ •~ V L ~ ~ L N ~ a .L.+ c v 0 `° O 0 O N R7 L N ~ bO L A N ~ U " C w o `ti ~ o jy U ~o,~, '~ ~ U }" .C ~ .C ~` O ~ •"~ y., a, •~ ~Ir L O h H ~ d N 0~) +~ a, V n'1 ~=, N t\ 2-22 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Generol Plan Update N L 3 e~ d f C Q 00 ld ~~i a 0 N ;° N ~ d H Vf v _ ~' ~ 4' ~ +., ~ o ~ ~ ~ c ,~ c .o ago u~o ~n o in in in ~ ,eo `° `° `° o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. O N J N J N J J bq ~ ~ ~ ~ i t ~ y ~ p h :. ~ C~ ~ 'ZS ~ w ~ ~ obi ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~o o"i G ~ ~% , _ v ~ ~ ~ h C CVi a0 ~ .~' ~ ~ ~ - r' O) ~ ~ h ~ A. C OUi b'0 ^a C ~ ? ~ ~ ~ U L ~ _ ~ H ~ L O ~ '~ '~+ ~ 0 C +~ y O.i ;-n -.~, ~ ~ yam.. ~ y O - U ~, O ~ O ~ O) ~ ~ ~ O ~ Obi Oq ? ' O ~ ~ y o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~. ~ ~ ~O o~ ~" ~ ~n Oy ~ C y ~ tJ. C ~ ~ ~ H i... 1Q -U O ~ C ~ y., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ C ^~ fV .C ~ ~` ~„r H .~ O .C ~ ~ H a o, ~ ~ a.o ~ y ~ of ~ y ~~, ~ h ° M O TS c, ~ . ~ ~., ~ ~ ~ c ~. ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~n O> v ~ O i -~: - UV '~ ~ - C ~ ~ 4 H . C ~ d ~ 0.1 O ~ ~ ~ C G -i.. O U ~ C _ ~ ~ T ~ ~ - ~ ~ O ~ _1 .. ~ Q C y V ~ .. 0 e + ~ w i ~.~ w b A .rte I ~ ~ ~ C U ~ O' ~ N y ' ~ ~ O> O H O O i ~ p "j ^ ~ O p C ~ i y ~ O R ~ y ~ C +~ . O ~ i ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ „ ~ ~ . y w ~ ~ ~ y Vim.. bQ ~ ~ Q ~ -U ~ +.+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ V y ~ N N ' w A' C ~ O ~ ' Q' ~ ~ ? ' ~ C~ ~ -~.. -~ y ~ 7 -~ ~ h fV ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O Z$ ~ ~ i... ~ ~ ~ (~ O '~ ~ ~ - 1~ v V ~ ~ • ~ y ~ ~ ~ ' ~ • _ ~ ' V 3: ~ ' V1 ~ ~ L ^ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ k ~ O ~ ~ ~ Q~ it ~ C ~ ~ O~ O H Q' ~ ~ ~ y -O ~ .y G, ~ ~ 3 V y ~ .~ ~ o~ ~ a a 3~ O y ~ ~ O ~ y ~ -~ ~ o~ ~ ' O ~ y C CS Z N C ~ ~ N d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C" ~ N ~ N i ~ ~ ~ a O ~ A ++ ~ N N ~ p 0 ~ V C C N ~ -4J L ~ V •+ ~ L ~ N is u ~ C ~ Q L H ~ ~ L d L ~ C ~ d i d~ ~ C 0 ~ d N N O y C v ~~ c v d~ ~ v d a ~ j N m 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ N L d~ ~ d V ~ j w C S O LL. V N N m O a~ d V N V ~~ O iy d V G ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ N _ M ~ M _ M ~ W '~t Q' ~ ~ 2-23 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update u c ~ v v u ~: ,~" c ~ 'c •~ ° N N `~' c c c ~ C •~ L L ~ u _ y N ~ ~ N N Q~ J Q J J 'Zi . ~ ~ i i i ~ obi ~ s. ~ Cq ~ ~ .y .x_. ~ cy '~ ' ^' y ~ s. .a `*~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ obi ~ h ~ ~ ~ Q. y ~ O • + O O +~+ ~ b~q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ O ~ •~ G O (~ ~ ++ r O H ~, ~. y co ~ a, ... e ~ ~ ~~.. •~ p v C Ci O o~ •~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ O h ~ ~ h O ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ O O ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ v b0 ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U o ~ y ,C ~ ~ Oq • y ~ ~ O [Sr ~ ~ ~ ;+. ~ ~ X T. of ~ ~ U O ,~ {y ,~ x~, d O ~ ~ O ~ ..a , V p~ ~ ~ h a~ ti C' C/~ ~ ~O ice,, ~ ,~, ~ Rr a.. 01 O 'LS r4 ~ Vj y O ~ ~ ~ C) ~ H O O O (~ ? +-~ .c ~ o v Q ~ .~, o> v ~ U ~ ~ W es v W ~L ~ s. ~-. ~, ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ - o ~ M w ~ N .-. N N td d N ~ 61 L ~ ~ A O ~ ~ R ~ ~ N N L ~ j ~ ~ O d y C ~ 0 E y ~ a i£ w ~ c O t ~C ~ ~ A d ~~ L ~ w _ '~ E y w u •3 ~ E d 'a.+ ~ > d C C ~ N y C ~ N Y D C ~ ~ y~ (7 C O ~ ++ !ud t+ > N 'O N ~ E ~ ~ O c0 c o A N H L «S E i d °7 d C ~ d~ ~ O ~ ~ N n L w ~ .~+ Q 7 00 ~ 3 a~+ v~ U 7 ~ s Z ~ a°~ ~ u ~r~ ° N ~ N ~ ~ u to G1 ~ p M ~ V' l~Q 3 ~ ~ Q V' H {B W 2-24 Chapter 2: Executive Summory Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update N i 3 h ld E C O b0 h a N ~;' N ~ a~ v c a 'c ~ ~ o ~ o o a, Q~ J ~ C v a 0 a~ v N C V N L a a~ 0 a°o Z'i d c a~ C .; C W L v .a Z 'o a l7 c ~ ~ ~ v w ~ ~ o ~ oco aco aao in in in c - c c c d N N y N H N ~ J J J `.= u C ^ ~ ~ . ~ H ~ ~ y o~ " O Q v ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ y , ~ -° ~ o ~ ~ ~ a ~L ,,_, ~ ~ ~ .a o E °' ~ ~ O ry ~ ~ ~ X ~ , ~ C/~ ~ ~ o~ U ? ~ ~ .~, .. ~ vl ~ ~ ti `'~ ~ ~ z -~ ~ 'ts ~ v ~ ~ V Cp ~' M L ~ ~. ,~, O ~ ?~ ~ m~ ~ ~ p r.. .~, d L 4+ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ C~ ~ . C ~ ,~ 7 C) O i i. • , C c~7 ~ . ~ ~ Q f ~ v 4~ ~ O V ~ ~ .~ ~ U b ~ ti ~ ~ o i 7~ .C ~ ° V' u c ~ ~ "' o ~ b o '} ~ u o ~ M o i ~ ~ ~ ' ` ° am' v a - aQ ~ ~ • U . - y vi x ~ r" ~ y.. C E .D b4 ~ -~.+ ~ - ~ r 3 O O ~ V ~ O L ~ ~~~ L w~ • TS o ''"' y ~„ - V p ~ o~ ,,, +-~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ c L ~ '-' c H - ~ ~ r` `~ ~' -~ GI ~ h a0 b ~ ~ QO ~ ~ ,~ ~ O ~ G ~ H .D T O i , ~~~ +.. U N u ~ ~~ o"i-yr "x T.-QO.~ C Q , d O1 ~ c.~ C S ' ~ Cq (~ L ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ . 7Vr •~ ~ N ~ ~ fO a.i V ~ -~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ U ^ C G. N ~ '~ i A ~ L ~ ~ U ~ Y ~ ~ '~ ~ e C 3 ~ ~y jj• ~ ~ r• , ~ ~ ao ~' ' ~n u 'i L -~ L -3 ~ N 00 a ~i d _ •~' M ~ h N ~ L ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ •- ~ ~ ~ ° n ~ ~ a ~ Z Z ° o L '> N ~ N '^ C ~ W Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y v a~ L O ~ ~ ~ i i " ~ c ~ ~ aLi N +' L O ±' .~+ 3 a C L d ~ a+ d :~ ~ .n p ~ Z ~ ti u `~ u O U ~ L U ~ c V C d +~ C _ -L io ~ L_ ~ C d '60 -i O ~ d ~ W Z y ~ C A C~ ~ O d 4+ L 0 > r c y y .~ L ~ .~ N O a~ - y y L C y d N~ 0 ~ b- - c ~ ~ ; ~ a - y a~ v . i ~a of S ai v ~n O O r0 ~ 7 y > O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L d ~ > C 7 fE ~ ~ LL L ~o r L aO V n '.n c ~ H 7 y u. ,,, N c ~~ u ~ ~ N c H a o ~ ~ ~ -y ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ v v v Z -~ 2-25 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires EIRs to consider alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or minimize at least one of the impacts associated with the project. The alternatives must repre- sent areasonable range of different planning options. While the alternatives must be designed to attain the project's basic objectives, they may result in negative environmental impacts not experienced by the proposed project itself. Each alternative and its associated impacts, relative to the proposed project, are briefly summarized in this section. The Draft EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative and identify the envi- ronmentally superior alternative. Also, the analysis must explain why the proposed project is preferable to the alternatives. ALTERNATIVE A: NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT Under the No Further Development Alternative, there would be no new development in South San Francisco beyond currently approved projects. Approved projects include: • Approximately 1,130 housing units west of US 101; • Approximately 3.3 million square feet of commercial and industrial building space, mostly east of 101. This alternative provides a baseline comparison to the proposed project. By allowing no new development, it would avoid nearly every impact resulting from the project. However, halting development altogether is unrealistic, since laws protect private property rights and regional economic growth creates pressure for new job centers and housing. Also, it would fail to ac- complish many of the community goals identified during the General Plan Update process. ALTERNATIVE B: NO PROJECT CEQA requires consideration of a "No Project," meaning the scenario in which the proposed project is not implemented. In the absence of the proposed project, the existing General Plan would continue to guide the city's development. Full build-out of the existing General Plan would include both currently approved projects, plus additional development permitted by the Plan in the future. The No Project Alternative would have less housing development and population growth relative to the proposed project, but more non-residential development. Many of the impacts associated with population growth under the proposed project-such as increased demand for schools-would be reduced or avoided under the No Project Alternative. While feasible, the No Project Alternative would not help achieve the community's goals. The General Plan update was initiated in order to respond to changing demographic and eco- 2-26 Chopier 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update nomic circumstances, as well as regional transportation planning. In particular, expansion of San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) and the BART extension have created opportuni- ties and pressures for new development. The existing General Plan is inadequate-not only does it not adequately address the evolving urban conditions and issues in South San Fran- cisco-but it also does not contain the all of the State-required elements. ALTERNATIVE C: LINDENVILLE EMPHASIS In this alternative, the Lindenville area south of Downtown would be redeveloped as a mixed- use neighborhood, consisting of high-density housing, small commercial centers, neighbor- hood parks, and open space bands along Colma Creek and abandoned railroad rights-of--way. This alternative would result in more residential development than in any other alternatives. The Downtown street grid would be extended south of Colma Creek, and new streets, in both east-west and north-south directions, would be built connecting the neighborhood to Downtown, the San Bruno BART station, El Camino Real, and areas east of the Caltrain tracks and US 101. New office development would be concentrated near the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations. New hotels would be located along US 101 and Airport Boulevard, and a re- gional commercial center would be built between US 101 and the Lindenville neighborhood. The eastern portion of the East of US 101 area would be reserved for Business Park uses. Additional high-density residential and neighborhood commercial development would be encouraged north of Downtown. The northern part of Sign Hill would be preserved as open space, and linear parks would be developed along some abandoned railroad rights-of--way and over the underground BART line. The major distinction between the proposed project and the Lindenville alternative is the lo- cation and concentration of new residential development. Whereas the proposed project in- cludes small-scale infill residential development, particularly this alternative proposes large- scale redevelopment to create a new residential neighborhood. The major drawbacks of resi- dential development in the Lindenville area, however, are that structures would be subject to single-event flyover aircraft noise, as well as CNEL noise levels in excess of 65 dB in some ar- eas. Many existing viable businesses would also be displaced. ALTERNATIVE D: EAST OF 101 EMPHASIS As implied by the name, this alternative would focus new non-residential development East of US 101. Key characteristics of the East of 101 area would include: • High-technology and research-related businesses north of Grand Avenue; • New streets that break up the large industrial blocks into a more business-center scale; • Open space frontage along San Francisco Bay; 2-27 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update • Regional commercial uses south of Utah Street; • Hotel development south of East Grand Avenue on both sides of Gateway Boulevard. This alternative would substantially reduce the amount of non-residential development cur- rently approved under the East of 101 Area Plan. Limited non-residential development west of 101 would be included, including hotels west of 101, adjacent to the Lindenville neighbor- hood, and a mix of retail and residential uses near the South San Francisco BART station. The total amount of new non-residential development be less than in the proposed project, re- ducing some potential impacts, such as traffic generation. This alternative also differs from the proposed project in the location and intensity of resi- dential development. Whereas the proposed project includes small-scale infill development in Downtown, the East of 101 alternative focuses new residential development north of Down- town and along the El Camino corridor, where larger parcels can be redeveloped. New resi- dential development would occur at much higher intensities than in the other alternatives, and in areas with somewhat steep slopes, including the north face of Sign Hill. While poten- tial impacts on Downtown would be minimized, the loss of open space and special status spe- cies habitat would result from development of Sign Hill. ALTERNATIVE E: TRANSIT EMPHASIS In this alternative, non-residential development would be clustered around rail transit sta- tions and key shuttle bus routes. Key features of the alternative include: • Office development clustered around the San Bruno BART station and along the po- tential shuttle routes linking the Downtown Caltrain station, the two BART stations, and businesses east of US 101; • Regional commercial center west of US 101 and south of Cohna Creek; • Mixed office and hotel development in the potential light rail corridor along South Airport Boulevard (an extension of the Airport Light Rail System is proposed); • Mixed commercial/office development near the South San Francisco BART station; • R&D and Business Park uses along the waterfront. New residential development would largely be limited to the Colma Creek comdor and parts of the Lindenville area. The overall density of residential development would be lower than in the other two "build" alternatives and would result in less overall development. Population estimates would still be higher than in the proposed project. Overall orientation of development to transit would have beneficial impacts on the city, by diverting a substantial number of auto trips to bus and rail. Nevertheless, the alternative would have greater overall non-residential development, with greater associated impacts as a result. For example, greater non-residential development east of US 101 increases the risk for exposure to contaminated materials found in the Bay fill east of US 101. Also, this alterna- 2-28 Chapter 2: Executive Summary Droft Environmental Impoct Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update tive-like the Lindenville alternative-proposes residential development south of Colma Creek, which is subject to single-event aircraft flyover noise. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The No Further Development alternative, while difficult to implement, is the environmentally superior alternative, mainly because it allows no additional development beyond currently approved projects.` Impacts that would be avoided include: worsening levels of service at roadway intersections and segments; pressures on public facilities and services; short- and long-term air quality degradation; and increased noise levels. However, the No Further De- velopment alternative is infeasible, because of regional growth pressures and the rights of pri- vate property owners to develop their land. Restricting future development would also threaten the City's economic viability. CEQA requires that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative-and the No Further Development alternative being its derivation-another envi- ronmentally superior alternative is to be identified. Of the three "build" alternatives, there is no single one that is superior to the proposed project in all or most respects. However, each of the "build" alternatives is environmentally superior in certain areas. The Lindenville Emphasis alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, in that it would maximize the potential amount of housing development it the City, coming closer than any other alternative to meeting regionally projected population increases. The East of 101 Emphasis Alternative would be environmentally superior in several areas, be- cause its low overall amount of non-residential development-particularly office develop- ment-would result in fewer related impacts. These impacts include less potential exposure to hazardous materials found in the fill soils east of US 101, less potential exposure to the nega- tive impacts of seismic activity, and less traffic generation. The Transit Emphasis alternative would be environmentally superior in terms of transporta- tion, because it is associated with the largest investment in roadway and transit improve- ments. Nevertheless, although the Transit Emphasis is the superior alternative in this respect, it is not preferable to the proposed project. The cost of building the light rail extension is a major barrier to its future development. In the absence of the rail extension, the large number of trips generated by the Transit Emphasis alternative would be more likely made via auto- mobile, generating higher levels of traffic. ' This alternative would not be completely free of environmental impacts, because approved development may have significant effects on the environment. For example, the recently approved Terrabay project would result in the loss of open space and would potentially impact several Native American archaeological sites. 2-29 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update 3. Project Description Under California Government Code, Section 65300 et seq., cities are required to prepare a General Plan that establishes policies and standards for future development, housing afforda- bility, and resource protection. By law, a General Plan must be an integrated, internally con- sistent statement of City policies. Section 65302 requires that the General Plan include the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety, each of which have their own required contents. Additional elements maybe prepared as well, at the discretion of the City. Cities may make a total of four amendments to the Gen- eral Plan each year (each amendment may include any number of changes), and they are en- couraged to keep it current through regular updates. 3-I Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 3.1 LOCATION AND PLANNING BOUNDARIES South San Francisco is located on the western shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The city is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range, and is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including US 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the San Fran- cisco International Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive city landmark. The regional location of the city is shown in Figure 3.1-1. PLANNING BOUNDARIES State law requires that each city adopt a general plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which ... bears relation to its planning." The Planning Area for the General Plan includes all land within City limits, and unincorpo- rated "islands" surrounded by the city. Inclusion of unincorporated land in the Planning Area does not mean that the City is contemplating annexation. The General Plan Update contains several policies that pertain to unincorporated areas. Figure 3.1-2 shows the General Plan Planning Area. The Planning Area encompasses 6,160 acres (approximately 9.6 square miles), of which approximately 58 acres are open water, and 1,175 acres are streets. San Francisco Bay to the east and San Bruno Mountain to the north provide strong natural boundaries. The cities of Brisbane, Daly City, Colma, Pacifica and San Bruno adjoin South San Francisco. 3-2 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 3.2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT South San Francisco's history is a story of transformation, from a bucolic dairy pasture to a center for meat packing and heavy industry to an emerging high tech, office and biotech core. A combination of factors have contributed to industrial growth in South San Francisco over time -excellent location, ever-improving transportation access, and the deliberate develop- ment of housing and services to provide for a nearby labor force. 3-3 ,. 0 4 MILES s 1 -_'__--~ .\ -~ ~ \ Figure 3.1-1 Regional Location 0 d w C. w b va w 0 o ~~ O 3 m ~' OC ~ DC ro m O O %~ v ~ ~~ r,, O 00 L`=~ /, 0 0 0 ', j .,` ~- `~ -_-_-~ ~~~`~,, ~ '~ f ~~~ ~ ~' ~ i ~, Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update South San Francisco has also evolved as a residential community. Where once the residential and commercial portion of the city was a company town for the "beef trust" packers on Point San Bruno, today only 23 percent of employed residents work in the city. Improved trans- portation access and extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco into a commuter suburb. The city's growth over time, from just before incorporation in 1908 until the present, is shown in Figure 3.2-1. Some of the effects of South San Francisco's growth history that are still apparent in the city today include: • The city's continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to San Francisco International Airport, but echoing its role as the central distribution point for the Peninsula in the 1920s and 1930s; • The presence of large tracts of land, formerly used for heavy industry, east of US 101; • The presence of comparatively small parcels in the Lindenville area, which emerged through piecemeal transition from residential to industrial use fairly late in the city's history; • Extensive single-use areas of residential and industrial development; • Relatively old housing stock built during the explosive period of postwar growth. South San Francisco essentially reached the limits of its expansion potential with the devel- opment of Westborough in the 1970s and the recent development of Terrabay on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain; future growth will stem from internal change and redevelop- ment, rather than outward expansion. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS South San Francisco's fastest period of growth was during World War II and the postwar pe- riod, when the population increased from 6,000 to over 39,000, fueled by extensive annexa- tion and residential subdivision. Growth has slowed considerably in recent decades. One of the most notable aspects of the population is its large proportion of minorities. Asians were estimated to comprise 28 percent of the population in 1996, and 30 percent of the population was estimated to be of Hispanic origin. The city's Asian population has generally higher income levels than the rest of the population. The largest population groups in South San Francisco are those aged 25 to 44, particularly those between 25 and 34, and young children under ten yeazs of age. This age distribution is consistent with the large number of families in South San Francisco; 74 percent of the city's households are family households. Household sizes are large in South San Francisco compared to the rest of San Mateo County, and are continuing to rise. 3-7 Chapter 3: Project Description Drafi Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 3.2- I Historic Population and Household Growth 1980 1990 1999 Population 49,393 54,312 60,938 Percent Increase 10% 12% Households 17,596 18,5 19 19,605 Persons per Household 2.82 2.9 I 3.08 Percent Increase 5% 6% Source: US Census, California Depanment of Finance. EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, AND INCOME South San Francisco's median household income in 1990 was lower than San Mateo County's but slightly higher than the median income in the Bay Area as a whole. Since that time, real incomes seemed to have risen somewhat, based on current estimates. A particularly pertinent issue for economic development efforts is the education and em- ployment profile of South San Francisco residents. In general, residents have lower levels of educational attainment and hold lower level jobs than residents of the Bay Area as a whole. This discrepancy is particularly notable with regard to executive and administrative jobs: South San Francisco has a much lower concentration of residents with managerial positions and a higher proportion of residents in administrative positions than the region as a whole. The most prevalent industries in which South San Francisco residents are employed are transportation, retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate, and manufacturing. The city has a low proportion of residents engaged in nondurable goods manufacturing and profes- sional services compared to the rest of the Bay Area. 3-8 ti v~ ~~ A. ~ w~-*~o a~ c °-v~a~ phi ~ p~~, ;; ~ a, ~ y. ~ Q' G, ado ~ o~ g w ~ ~ ~~ ~ a p- ~ ° (D ~ O A~ ~y cn O n Q. < N by n ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ r9 O ~. ,°~ ~, ~ '~ ~ V ' ~ '+ ~ O ' ° o a, ~ o ~~ `~ 'J ~ ~ 7d ' G ~,, A, ~ V rw+ UQ y ~ ~ r+ ~ ~ G ~ M ~' 0 F-"G y 0 ~ ¢' ~ ~ a ,ty w O ~ o ~ . ~.~ ~' KI c~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ti u C ~ K Y r z b ^V'• m n in' n O ~~ m O m 0 c O O ~' -+, o„~. ~~ O ~,., ~ ti ~ • r7 F-4 ~ CD G ~ `J p ~ ~ y W y ~ ~ ° ~ y ~ ~~ ~ y a ' ~O ~ a. Clq O n~+ y ' " ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o0 o ~ o ~, v+ .7 A~ ~t r+ 7 v~ H W ~ 7 H ' 7 . ~ ~ p' O _ r Ei Q , ~ a ~ , ~ ~ O ~ ~ O .~riit-a' b ra. ~'• a, rp O ~ G ~ vG~ ~ ti ~~.~~' ~ ~ F~ N (D a~ ~ y o G O ° ,~ ~ ru ° ~ G ~-~ ~~,2 -- ~e < o ~ ~ ° ~ a ~: ~ 0 0 a. a o a Y e Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update 3.3 OBIECTIVES OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a description of project objectives. The objectives of the proposed South San Francisco General Plan are presented below. These objectives are also presented in Chapter l: Introduction and Overview in the proposed Gen- eral Plan. The General Plan: • Outlines a vision for South San Francisco's long-range physical and economic devel- opment and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community; • Provides strategies and specific implementing actions that will allow this vision to be accomplished; • Establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan policies and standards; • Allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards; and • Provides the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and imple- menting programs, such as the Zoning Ordinance, the Capital Improvements Pro- gram, facilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans. The General Plan articulates a vision for the City, but it is not merely a compendium of ideas and wish lists. Plan policies focus on what is concrete and achievable and set forth actions to be undertaken by the City -broad objectives such as "quality of life" and "community char- acter" are meaningful only if translated into actions that are tangible and can be implemented. Because of legal requirements that a variety of City actions be consistent with the General Plan, regular on-going use of the Plan is essential. The Plan is both general and long-range; there will be circumstances and instances when detailed studies are necessary before Plan policies can be implemented. 3-II Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Updote 3.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Many significant changes in and around South San Francisco are anticipated in the coming years, representing both challenges and opportunities. These include a major expansion of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) with doubling of passenger traffic over the next ten years and extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit to SFIA with stations in South San Fran- cisco, and in San Bruno directly adjacent to the city. With demand for land exceeding avail- ability, establishment of priorities will be essential to achieving community development ob- jectives. GENERAL PLAN THEMES The unique challenges and opportunities the City faces are reflected in the General Plan's nine themes, which provide the basis for detailed policies included in the Plan elements: 1. Neighborhood-oriented Development. The General Plan envisions South San Francisco as a community of strong neighborhoods. While the City's commercial and industrial areas continue to evolve, the Plan seeks to ensure that the City's established neighbor- hoods, which encompass almost 75 percent of the area west of US 101, are protected from the impacts of changes elsewhere. A guiding premise of the Plan is that activities and facilities used on a frequent basis, such as stores and parks, should be easily accessible to residents. Land uses are desig- nated to ensure balanced neighborhood development with a mix of uses, and provi- sion of parks, stores, and offices in neighborhoods that presently lack them. The Plan seeks to ensure that infill development in the residential areas will be of appropriate scale and character, and restricts larger outlets to appropriate sites in community and regional centers. 2. Economic Development and Diversification. The evolution of the South San Francisco's economy, from manufacturing to warehousing and distribution and now high- technology and biotechnology, is a unique opportunity for the City to strengthen its economic base. Continued economic development is vital to accomplishing many of the General Plan's objectives as well; its importance is underscored by the inclusion of an Economic Development Element in the General Plan. The Element articulates the City's role in economic development and outlines policies to implement these strate- gies. In addition to ensuring that adequate sites are available for commercial and in- dustrial development, strategies are designed to build on existing clusters of high- technology and service industries and capitalize on SFIA expansion and BART exten- sion. The Plan also promotes a new work/live district adjacent to Downtown. In ad- dition, targeted policies for specific areas are included in Chapter 3: Planning Sub- Areas. 3-12 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 3. Increased Connectivity and Accessibility. Freeways and major arterials sever the City into four major fragments -west of Junipero Serra (Westborough), between Junipero Serra and El Camino Real, between El Camino Real and US 101, and the area east of US 101. Connections between these different city segments are extremely limited, and the connecting roadway segments are major points of congestion. Integration of the different parts of the City is a theme that is reflected in several Plan policies. Roadway improvements and new streets are also proposed to link different neighborhoods. In addition, Plan proposals seek to improve residents' access to everyday commercial needs, and to parks and the shoreline. 4. Redevelopment of Older Industrial Areas. The City's continued status as a goods trans- portation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to SFIA, but echoing its role as the central distribution point for the Peninsula in the 1920s and 1930s, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land, formerly used for heavy industry, east of US 101. In contrast, Lindenville, which lies south of Downtown, emerged through piecemeal transition from residential to industrial use late in the City's history. As high-technology businesses have moved into many of these older industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual char- acter have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of business centers-smaller blocks, more through street connections, ancillary facilities such as restaurants, easier connections to transit, sidewalks and bikeways, and higher landscape standards-are much different from those of warehousing and industrial areas. The General Plan outlines a cohesive strategy that protects selected industrial areas and policies to guide transformation of others. 5. Land Use/Transportation Correlation and Promotion of Transit. Land uses, mixes, and development intensities in the General Plan have been designed to capitalize on major regional transit improvements underway, and to promote alternative forms of transit. High-intensity, mixed-use districts are proposed near BART stations, and incentives are offered for specific transit-oriented amenities. Improved connections between residential and employment centers and transit hubs are also included. 6. Reinforcement of Downtown as the City's Center. The General Plan seeks to reinforce Downtown's identity and role as the physical and symbolic center of the City. Plan strategies include increased residential development to increase Downtown's popula- tion base, better connections with Lindenville and other surrounding neighborhoods, and ensuring that commercial uses outside Downtown-including in the proposed "power center" and in designated centers east of US 101-do not compete with Downtown. 7. Enhancement of Community Character. The General Plan includes specific urban de- sign policies for areas such as Lindenville and US 101 that are undergoing change. In addition, strategies are offered for providing a cohesive image and identity for key corridors, such as El Camino Real. 3-13 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 8. Coordinated Shoreline Development and Increased Accessibility. South San Francisco's four-mile long shoreline along the San Francisco Bay is a tremendous resource. The General Plan seeks to increase shoreline accessibility through amulti-pronged strategy that includes physical improvements, and location of activities-such as new parks, Town Square/Campus Center, and a public marketplace-near the water. 9. Performance-Based Standards for Services to Ensure Sustainability. Standards for capital facilities and public services, such as streets, parks, storm drainage, and fire-safety, are established to ensure that growth does not exceed carrying capacity. To maintain the quality of public services for residents, development would be required to meet spe- cific standards established by the Plan. GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT Projects under construction or with current approvals and development consistent with the General Plan Update resulting from application of assumed average densities and intensities for the different land use classifications to vacant and sites with potential redevelop- ment/intensification opportunities are described in Table 3.4-1. The time at which full devel- opment ("buildout") will occur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan. Designation of a site for a certain use does not necessarily mean that the site will be built/redeveloped with the designated use over the next 20 years, the horizon of the Plan. For the purpose of analysis, the Planning Area was divided into 14 sub-areas. Table 3.4-1 shows by each sub-area: • Projects with current development approvals. This includes about 1,150 housing units, more than half of which are concentrated in Terrabay, and about 3.4 million square feet of non-residential floor space. Hotels, with about 1.1 million square feet of space with approvals, and offices, with 0.9 million square feet of approved space, represent the primary non-residential uses. • Additional development under the General Plan. This results from application of aver- age assumed densities/intensities (shown on the table) to vacant sites and sites/areas with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities. Potential residential in- creases include 1,630 housing units, concentrated mainly in El Camino, Sunshine Gardens, and Downtown. Potential non-residential development includes 8.9 million square feet of new space; with an expected decrease of 3.3 million square of industrial space, the net increase will be 5.6 million square feet. About 3.1 million square feet (56 percent) of this net increase is expected to be in the four East of 101 sub-areas (East of 101, Gateway, Oyster Point, and South Airport). • Combined approved development and additional development. This reflects the total of the two above categories, and represents the expected incremental General Plan buildout. Buildout will result in an increase of 2,780 housing units and 9.0 million square feet of non-residential space to the city's current inventory of an estimated 19,400 housing units and 18.1 million square feet of non-residential space. 3-14 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Repori for South Son Francisco General Plan Update li oIo ° oo~o o'o 0 0.0 0,°~° ° of°',° olo ololo ° O o °,o'o 0 '. Z" Irv V''m. V -•P m S M ~ ~ ~ Z 'J P ^ - O~.m - 'nl ~ ~ ' olo o, o-0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 °lo o''o o_o ~.o o:o olo'o.0 0 ' I cS E ''~ i ' F3 0 ° I ~ '. '. . ~ vv . vvUd I '' ' oIo o;o,oo o'loo o~o:o ~o ~o o'. o ~ o N °jo'.o l0 0 0 0'.0 0l0l010',0 0 o: o', ~o ~ o. 'd P o I. 'C ~ IN) '~ Ir i .y C = I .pl ' ~ ~ ` ~ O I ~ ' I I m Y O'O Oi010 O OIO O~~O iO'.O O.'O O ~ d -Y °O O.O O OO'i0 O'O iO ~O'O~O O I ~ Y ~ ~ , ~I p ' ~ ~ a ~ I y . I .v 'i^~ P.CD, ~ ~ v O O~ , P ' '. ry I ~ m y I y m' Ud ~ I ~~ ~ I ~ O OIOIO IO OO ~O:O.O'0 .010 ~0 O i IO O O I .p i ' I O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ °O~O.~O O O'.O 0.O',O IOO 010 ~ .O O ~i ' ' O O - '. C t ~ i I _ P . C ~ ~ ~ m - i ~ O I I ~ ~ O I. ' ~ ~ O I I ~ ~ I , W ~ 0.010101010 O~O',O O O'~O OHO ~ ~ 0 ~'~ W ~ o Y °°° 010 0,10',0 io OIO0 O10 ~O '~ o ~ 00 o , ~ e ,, o ~ I ' ~ ti EEp I ~~ ~.,, ', '. ~ 2i EEp b _ I I i, I '. I '.. ' ~ ' - ~ ~ I Z p v ~ ~ ~ I Z p ~ ~ c I l l I ~ ol, oiolo~oio o',o 0 0 oioiol,o o ~ E ° olo 'o ojolo''o olol,ololo ~0 0 'I. I ~ P, I I d ~ 8~ i j l C r ~ ~ i O_I , i I I I I I I I I v Ud g I i • I, ' I c o 0 0! 010 X10 ~0~010 oio io~o~o o ~ °i$i$Io ~$~ QIl ooio olo~loo.o o~S o $~ lo ~ $ ~'' ~I _ v i I I '. I, I ~: ~ ~ , i 6l io ^ mir. ~ m e E" E I I I I I i I c E y c i l Ir'., ~r! o ~ I l ~ ,~ o $o oo $ ol,ooo•o O'S~lolo~o I$ ~I Q 25 _ ' oIo o !ol °o ~ g'g o oo ol0 0 0;0 $$I 8 I ' 0 $ ~^ = '^ ~., Ir ~ ~ O~10 t~ I~~~ I rPw ~~ '. .. ¢ N = LL ~ N VP I- I~ N P E _ C E a I I I I I I S I _ 0 I 0 0 0_'1 erl 0 OO10 -I O g O O TIO I I_.o N _ O 010 IT O r Imo' ' I O ^ ~i01010 01 IT 0 OIO P lv ~,v - O ,o _ 'a° I I I I~ I I _ ~~ I ' ~ I -° z i i i C i-• s I I O O Oi 0i 0 0;0O I OiO 01.0 IO O O ~ ~Ii00. ONO O' OO O,OO OO O p°, N N C ~ ~ I I ~ I I 1 ~I I ~ ~ ~ a ~ O ~'~~ , I 1 '~ o c p I i . I 1. I I ~ I a a c ~ l ~ I ~ I ~ I I I . ~ ~ I i s° £ o oI o 0 0 0~ I 0 ol I o i,o o ,olo l i 0 0 0 r ~ o~oio 'r'Io I ICI ~ o om l ioo oomio io o I ITi c - I J c I 1 J ~ ~ I i I I ~ H Z ~ 2 I 'I ~ i I I I w F Z ~^ .~ S ®1 0 I I I I i I I I I I ~ I Q ~ O O 'O ~ o o OIO OIO OI OT IO ~ C Q ~ OIO'10 O~O O O N OO O 1010 'i0 8 ~ I W ~ v I I I i C W a ~ L' G ~ ', I i I ~ ~ ' ! S C ~ I I I I I I I = f®1` , I , ~ I I ~ ~ u i .~ O O iO m - O O Ni° I p IOi° i°I ° ° ,o P ~ .~, OIOO O~O O O O!OiT 10 i',n ~ °r - - s 0 u 2 ~I I I i I i m ~ ~ ~ ~^~ Y I ~ ~ ~ I ' I ~ I i I s o ! I ~ C I I ~ I m' ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ i I o I CI I~ ~ ~~ t V ~ m ~ ~ I '. ~ I Y' r wj j g ,v IC: ~ Y 7 i~ ' I i o O I ~ j I ', Imo'. I III Y I ~ ''v v C. If~ . ~ I, t~'C O H m iv l~ ° w ;o o c l ~ E ~ ~ u c ~ap ~j c 2 ~ 1 0 c t la~o ~ ^ I e la ~ of ;Io. gl ~, cl of qi u ~ c cl a > I d d ~I 12ts o, c ~~~ - q r '~ l la N a' o lolW I~ lWl ..Ila u ~ e olo A ~ !a ~ ~ o °i 1 x.3,3 0 ~ 19 a ~ ai °" ~' olW Wl~l _ ~~ol e ~~" ola ~' 3 3 3- IS Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update oIo°'o°il Iol°~. o°'. o° $ ° °o l° °'.O Imo, ~, ~18;$~.~i N'lol a $ $' °o ., $ Z . I O ~1O'~y ~_. Nm~mi~~ I~1~' P ` o . m F- i I. ~ ~ I p ~ -. ~ 1~'. ~~, r~ OiO i f ~ E v t ~ _ . I ~I ~ - $IOooio o~,..o oo r l,o ~,o',.olo cI of ~_ P . ~~D ~ ~. P ~ a P i -,I I ~I I I ~ ~ ~ I ` A Y y OiO ~1 O'.O 'O O O'~pO 01000'1 pO 10, p ~p'pI ~ ~ pO O IO i~ .-~ ~. :PIN ~ I vPi A ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~' i I I N O p pp °II° °'S CIO O O.Oi~0O 1O I O;O O 0 10 ~O ~, ~~ I ~ , I ~ m - S Q F ~. ~ I I. ~ IN ~ I ~~ ' I ~~ I 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W - 0 00 OIO 1O I,O O~O'1O O'O iO1O O 00 0 = v O. I I 'i I I ~ i N O C E ° ~ i i I ~I ! ', I I ',. 2 I I I ~ ~ °°$I°°°I,°$I 'lo iololo °io o° v1 L O I ~ .p 1 I C OQOO ISOiS O O O 101010 O `~ ~ c E y E o~ E a3 V O V °If 1~ t0 NIP 1 "' I I ~ I N I O 1 i N i C ~ °~!g°°Ig $ °° ' ~$I o°io °i°° g r r I v i _i:oln $i m c E ~ ~ ! I I it ''~ ° °` ° ^IO ^ N °1 8~, °8 °8 a N 8 q I i II 'I e F= c O Ni0 OI O O O O OOOO ,O.,O P d C O ~ G I i N C ~ I m O L ~ O O O 0 N 0 0 ^ 0 I 0 0 0 O Om O I O ~I N d 9 ~' . ~ ~ , I ~ o ~ r ~ fr I S I I I I I i I d Z = i ~ p ~ N ~~ o• .o ol i o 0 0 oI O o 001^ o I- ° N ~ > C I I l I ° ~ I li l I I ~. °i ° ° m ° ° ~ I °I $ ~ ° ~ °~~I°I~ N I m - V I I I I _ a 9 ~ ~ ~ Ii ~~ i ~ ~~ l i I~~ s r > °a ~ ~I ~j ' l~ I I ~ II I ji~ ' •• m ~ ~ ° ~ I I II I I I ~ii 1 $! i ~I'#oi ~ v I II c Ioo I o c ' A a. ~ =~ o s ,1 offal ~I O„ o I= S Q c olo - I »~ ~ c l ~ i ~ 3 ~ o V ~' °c f ~ C I C v ~. . i I cl a c U v i < . oIW iW ~3 ~~ I o o a I o .H l~!~13 3 3-16 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Population The 1999 population of South San Francisco was 60,938. The proposed General Plan at buildout would accommodate a population level of approximately 67,400, or 11 percent over 1999 levels. Anticipated population changes with the proposed General Plan are indicated in Table 3.4-2. The time at which full development ("buildout") will occur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan; Therefore, the levels of "buildout population" may be reached in a 15-25 year period. Table 3.4-2 Buildout Population and Growth Rate 1990 1999 1990-1999 Buildout Population Share o f Population Share of Annuol Growth Population Share of County County Rate County South San Francisco 54,312 8.4% 60,938 8.4% 1.3% 67,400' 8.4% San Mateo County 649,623 100% 722,762 100% 1.2% 798,600 100% I If buildout under the General Plan Update occurred by 2020. Source: Department of Finance; Dyett & Bhatia Employment In 1997, South San Francisco had a total of approximately 39,100 jobs, primarily in ware- housing, industrial and manufacturing, commercial and retail sectors. Between 1997 and 2020, the city is projected to add 82.6 percent to its employment base. The largest growth in employment will occur in the Office and Business Park land use, primarily in the East of 101 area. Table 3.4-3 shows South San Francisco's historic and projected employment base. Em- ployment figures at buildout are based on average employment densities for projects under construction or with current approvals and development consistent with the General Plan Update (Table 3.4-1). The time at which full development ("buildout") will occur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan; However, the levels of "buildout employment" may be reached in a 15-25 year period, depending on economic conditions. 3-17 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 3.4-3 Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout Land Use Estimated 1997 Em- ployment ' Increase to Buildout Buildout Employment Commercial/ Retail 10,400 3, 100 13,500 Hotels/ Visitor Services 1,800 3,900 5,700 Office and Business Park (inc. Medical) 5,700 23,500 29,200 Warehouse/ Mixed Industrial 13,400 (3,200) 10,200 Public and Schools 1,500 - 1,500 Construttion and Miscellaneous 2,500 1,800 4,300 Others (including at home workers) 3,800 3,200 7,000 Total 39, 100 32,300 7 I ,400 ' 1997 estimate by Dyett & Bhatia. Note: Service Commercial is included in Warehouse/Mixed Industrial 120;000 100.000 80,000 60,000 40;000 20.000 0 Housing Chart 3.4 I Jobs/Errployed Residents Balance, 1997-Buildout 27,900 39,100 1997 32,352 71,400 ^ ~~OyEd ~SI~Et1tS ^ ~ObS Btldout In January of 1999, there were 20,175 housing units in South San Francisco (Ca. Department of Finance). The proposed General Plan would accommodate approximately 2,780 additional housing units, including 1,150 housing units that are currently approved or are under con- struction. 3-18 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update KEY POLICY DIRECTIONS: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS Each city and county in the State is required to have a general plan that provides long-range direction for its physical development. A general plan contains "elements", which are compo- nents organized by particular subjects such as land use, housing, and noise. Arrangement of Required General Plan Elements The proposed General Plan includes six elements required by state law (Land Use, Circula- tion, Open Space, Conservation, Noise and Safety) and other elements that address local con- cerns and regional requirements. The state-required mandatory elements are included in the General Plan, as outlined in Table 3.4-4. Table 3.4-4 Correspondence Between Required General Plan Elements and Chapters in the South San Francisco General Plan Required Element Where included in the General Plan Land Use Chapter 2: Land Use Circulation Chapter 4: Transportation Conservation Chapter 7: Open Space and Environmental Conservation Open Space Chapter 7: Open Space and Environmental Conservation Safety Chapter 8: Health and Safety Noise Chapter 9: Noise The current South San Francisco General Plan consists of elements prepared at various times; the Land Use and Transportation elements, which comprise the heart of the General Plan, were last comprehensively updated in 1986. This section contains a brief summary of existing elements, followed by a discussion of key policy directions of the elements in the General Plan Update. Land Use Facisting General Plan South San Francisco's current Land Use Element was published in conjunction with the Transportation Element. This section describes the Land Use Element, followed by a discus- sion of the Transportation Element. Primary land use emphases include hillside and open space preservation, nature of residential development, and preferred industrial uses. The General Plan calls for preservation of hillsides above 30 percent slope and significant clusters of vegetation. Existing open spaces and recreation areas are to be preserved or improved. 3-19 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update The predominance of single-family neighborhoods makes residential uses a major policy area. Preservation of low-density single-family neighborhoods represents the overall policy direc- tion. Residential infill development may occur on lots with a maximum of 7,000 square feet at existing densities, and multifamily uses are not allowed to encroach into single-family areas. Many policies also focus on industrial uses in South San Francisco. In particular, new heavy industrial uses with negative environmental impacts, such as those producing flammable, toxic, or odorous byproducts are not permitted. The Plan calls for industrial buildings and landscaping to be carefully designed. In addition to overall policies, eleven planning areas were defined and analyzed with regard to land use and transportation issues, development patterns, and growth trends. Policies in this section are area-specific, rather than citywide in scope. Proposed General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan outlines the framework that guides land use deci- sion-making, provides the General Plan land use classification system, and outlines citywide land use policies. Unlike the existing General Plan, policies for each of the 14 individual sub- areas that comprise the General Plan Planning Area are in Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas of the General Plan Update. With all land in the east of US 101 area (East of 101) and some western parts of the city un- suitable for residential development because of aircraft operations at the San Francisco Inter- national Airport (SFIA) and established residential neighborhoods in much of the rest of the city, the General Plan attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neighborhoods. Development is targeted in centers and corridors to fulfill the city's twin objective of enhancing quality of life and economic vitality; ensure that established areas are not unduly impacted; and to support the extraordinary regional invest- ments in transit represented by extension of BART to the city. Neighborhood-scale issues such as intensity and character of new development and better linkages between and within neighborhoods are also explored in this and other plan elements. The land use framework of the General Plan is guided by several key principles: • Conservation of the existing land use character of the city's residential neighbor- hoods. • Promotion of Downtown as the focus of activity, including through increased resi- dential opportunities. Policies that promote development standards that build on Downtown's traditional urban pattern aze identified. • Integration of land use with planned BART extension, such as by providing a new transit-oriented village around the South San Francisco BART station, and new clus- ters of high-intensity offices and other similar uses to take advantage of regional ac- cess that will result from extension of BART to the city. 3-20 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update • Provision of selected areas in the city where industrial uses, many of which fulfill a re- gional objective, can continue and expand. • Mixed-use redevelopment along principal corridors, such as El Camino Real and South Spruce Road. • Designation of a new mixed-use neighborhood center at Linden Avenue/Hillside Boulevard to increase accessibility of Paradise Valley/Terrabay residents to conven- ience shopping. • Anew Business and Technology Park district to provide opportunities for continued evolution of the city's economy, from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology. • Anew waterfront "town center" to provide identity and cater to the lunchtime needs of the growing employment base in the East of 101 area. • Anew live/work overlay district adjacent to Downtown to provide a broader mix of housing opportunities and promote small business and multimedia incubation. • Anew Business Commercial district, that will include hotels, principally serving air- port clientele, clustered along South Airport and Gateway boulevards. • A regional "power center", in part to facilitate a full interchange at the Victory Ave- nue. GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM The principles outlined above are encapsulated in the General Plan Diagram. The Diagram designates the proposed general location, distribution, and extent of land uses. As required by State law, land use classifications, shown as color/graphic patterns, letter designations, or la- bels on the Diagram, specify a range for housing density and building intensity for each type of designated land use. These density/intensity standards allow circulation and public facility needs to be determined; they also reflect the environmental carrying-capacity limitations es- tablished by other elements of the General Plan. The Diagram is a graphic representation of policies contained in the General Plan; it is to be used and interpreted only in conjunction with the text and other figures contained in the General Plan. The legend of the General Plan Diagram abbreviates the land use classifications described below, which represent an adopted part of the General Plan. 3-21 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 3-22 ~ ~ n'1 L ~ .~ b0 0 N VI C (~ J . , .,g ,. 4~s. , n ~~ ~,. ~. ~ 1` ~~ _~ ~ ~~ ~ l ~ ~~~~ ~_ 11., y _ __:~~ ..,.~ ~. ,..ft= '~,, ~,l '" I I ~, n ~, i E s ~~ r. ~,. ~~~~ ~,, `~ ~~~. = ~, ~~~_---- - ~. o ,,\ i~ . ~ ~ .,\ ~'~ ~.`,~ o ~' ~.,~ P ~ / ` `~r w ~ 1~~, y~ S 5 r~ s taY C r ~ D U I~ \~~;~/ 1'~ 6+J~ l~: ~ ~ - L /~ 3 ~ 9 u ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ n ~ ~ i ~ i`y 0 9 r ~ S ¢ ~ ~ s 3 ~ ~~3E~~SS3$~~~€~a~~ y.~ Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The classifications in this section represent adopted City policy. They are meant to be broad enough to give the City flexibility in implementing City policy, but clear enough to provide sufficient direction to carry out the General Plan. Residential Three residential land use classifications are established for areas outside of Downtown to provide for development of a full range of housing types (Downtown residential land use classifications are included later in this section). Densities are stated as number of housing units per net acre of developable land, excluding areas subject to physical, environmental, or geological constraints, and areas dedicated for creekside greenways or wetlands protection, provided that at least one housing unit may be built on each existing legal parcel designated for residential use. Low Density Single family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per net acre. Typical lots would be 6,000 square feet, but the minimum would be 5,000 square feet, and smaller lots (4,500 square feet or less) maybe permitted in neighborhoods meeting specified community design standards, subject to specific review requirements. This classification is mainly in- tended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permit- ted, provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The Zoning Ordinance may include a separate district for estate-type or zero-lot-line develop- ments. Medium Density Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre with a minimum of 2,250 square feet of net area (i.e. exclusive of streets, parks and other public rights-of--way) required per unit, and a minimum lot area of 6,750 square feet. Dwelling types may include attached or de- tached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses. Multifamily housing type is not permitted. High Density Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units per net acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including single-family attached development subject to standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and is intended for specific areas where higher density may be appropriate. A 25 percent density bonus may be approved for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities de- 3-25 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update signed for residents, and housing that meets community design standards that may be speci- fied in the Zoning Ordinance. Downtown Downtown Commercial This designation provides for a wide range of uses in the commercial core of Downtown, in- cluding retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, commercial recreation, entertain- ment establishments and theaters, financial, business and personal services, hotels, educa- tional, and social services, and government offices. Residential uses may be permitted on sec- ond and upper floors only, and subject to a use permit. The maximum Floor Area Ratio for all uses and mixes (residential and non-residential) is 3.0; the Zoning Ordinance may or may not establish maximum residential densities or minimum housing unit size for mixed-use developments. The Zoning Ordinance may also specify specific areas where retail or eating and drinking establishments would be required uses at the ground level. Residential In addition to housing type and density standards stipulated below, the Zoning Ordinance may establish development standards and parking and other requirements for Downtown residential development different from residential development elsewhere in the City. Three categories are included and are shown on the General Plan Diagram: • Downtown Low Density Residential. Single-family (detached or attached) residential development with densities ranging from 5.1 to 12.0 units per net acre. Multifamily development is not permitted. • Downtown Medium Density Residential. Residential development at densities ranging from 12.1 to 25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing types is permitted. • Downtown High Density Residential. Residential development at densities ranging from 25.1 to 40.0 units per net acre for lots equal to or greater than 1/i-acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots smaller than 1/z acre, maximum density shall be 30.0 units per acre. A maximum of 25 percent density bonus may be approved for projects with affordable hous- ing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Maximum density with all bonuses shall not exceed 50 units per net acre. Office This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, profes- sional, medical and public offices in locations proximate to BART or Caltrain stations. Sup- port commercial uses are permitted, subject to limitations established in the Zoning Ordi- 3-26 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impaci Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update nance. Site planning and building design shall ensure pedestrian comfort, and streets shall be fronted by active uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instances where existing buildings (such as at the Zellerbach site) are rehabilitated for office use and are unable meet the structured parking or specified design standard criteria. Commercial Community Commercial This category includes shopping centers, such as Westborough, and major commercial dis- tricts, such as El Camino Real, and regional centers along South Airport Boulevard. Retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments, commercial recreation, service sta- tions, automobile sales and repair services, financial, business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are permitted. An "R" designation on the General Plan Dia- gram indicates that the site is reserved for region-serving commercial uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5. Office uses are encouraged on the second and upper floors. Business Commercial This category is intended for business and professional offices, and visitor service establish- ments, with retail as a secondary use only. Permitted uses include administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor-oriented commercial activities, including hotels and motels, convention and meeting facilities. Restaurants and related serv- ices are permitted subject to appropriate standards. This category is intended for the Planned Commercial and emerging hotel district along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards, and South Spruce corridor. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development estab- lishments with low employment intensity, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria. Coastal Commercial Business/professional services, office, convenience sales, restaurants, public marketplace, personal/repair services, limited retail, hoteUmotel with a coastal orientation, recreational fa- cilities, and marinas. Maximum FAR is 0.5 for retail, recreation facilities, marinas, and eating and drinking establishments, 1.0 for offices, and 1.6 for hotels. All development will be sub- ject to design review by the Planning Commission. Uses and development intensities at Oys- ter Point will be regulated by the Oyster Point Specific/Master Plan. 3-27 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Industrial and Research and Development Two categories are proposed: Business and Technology Park, for the East of 101 areas north of Grand Avenue, and Mixed Industrial, for the areas south of Grand Avenue in East of 101 and Lindenville. Business and Technology Park This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, re- search and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research fa- cilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribu- tion facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be per- mitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments with low employment intensity, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Mixed Industrial This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for the full range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution, and service commercial uses. Unrelated retail and service commercial uses that could be more appropriately located elsewhere in the city would not be permitted, except for offices, subject to appropriate standards. Small restaurants and convenience stores would be allowed as an- cillary uses, subject to appropriate standards. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.4, with an increase to a total FAR of 0.6 for development undertaking or participating in off-site im- provements as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to development standards, the Zoning Ordinance may include performance standards to minimize potential environmental impacts. Public/Institutional To provide for schools, government offices, transit sites, airport, and other facilities that have a unique public character. Religious facilities are not called out separately on the General Plan Diagram, but are instead shown with designations on adjoining sites; these facilities may be specifically delineated on the Zoning Map. Parks Parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. Open Space This designation includes sites with environmental and/or safety constraints. Included are sites with slopes greater than 30 percent, sensitive habitats, wetlands, creekways, areas subject 3-28 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update to flooding, and power transmission line corridors. Where otherwise not excluded by noise, aircrafr safety or other environmental standards, residential development is generally permit- ted at a density not to exceed one housing unit per 20 acres. Transportation Existing General Plan The existing Transportation Element describes the range of improvements needed in the City's circulation system. Expansion of fixed rail service for commuters and freight along US 101 is a priority, as well as implementation of Transportation Demand Management pro- grams. Policies pertaining to the eleven planning areas, discussed in the Land Use section above, in- clude those focusing on transportation issues. Proposed General Plan The proposed Transportation Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to further an integrated multi-modal transportation sys- tem that encourages transit and meets the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as auto- mobiles and trucks. Issues from a citywide to a neighborhood- and block-level scale are ad- dressed. The Element identifies future circulation improvements, including several street ex- tensions and interchanges. Conservation and Open Space Existing General Plan Central to the Open Space Element aze three goals, involving facility enhancement, commu- nity beautification, and facility development. Objectives and policies under the facility en- hancement goal deal with facility maintenance and upgrading, funding, and personnel safety and supervision. Community beautification objectives call for stricter development standards, controlled planting and maintenance of street trees, and increased involvement by the com- munity and review committees. The facility development goal includes policies regazding the acquisition of public and private funding, and increasing community participation. The ex- isting General Plan does not contain a Conservation Element, but the East of 101 Area Plan includes an Open Space and Conservation Element that contains policies and programs which are intended to create and enhance open space and recreation opportunities in the East of 101 area. Proposed General Plan The proposed Open Space and Conservation Element is included in Chapter 8: Open Space and Conservation of the General Plan Update. This chapter outlines policies relating to habi- tat and biological resources, water quality, air quality, and historic and cultural resources 3-29 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plon Update conservation. The natural environment in South San Francisco has undergone drastic change during its history of urbanization. Although virtually the entire city is developed with urban uses, the city and the immediate surroundings are known to support remnant areas of high biological value, notably San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetlands. The proposed Gen- eral Plan policies ensure that ecologically sensitive areas are protected and restored where feasible. An assessment of biological resources in these sensitive areas is required when devel- opment is proposed and appropriate mitigation measures may be required as a condition of approval for development that significantly impacts sensitive habitat or special status species. This chapter also ensures that surface and groundwater quality is enhanced and contamina- tion is prevented. Additional policies address the conservation of historic, cultural, and ar- chaeological resources. Housing The existing Housing Element was prepared in 1992; In accordance with State Law, the City intends to update the Housing Element by June 2001. The 1992 Housing Element calls for development of 2,801 additional units in South San Francisco over the 19,130 units existing at the time. As of January 1, 1999, only 978 units had been built since 1992. The proposed Gen- eral Plan would accommodate a total of 2,780 housing units; Over 40 percent of these units aze currently approved or under construction. Nearly 300 of the additional housing units are proposed through intensification of the existing housing stock in the Downtown. Principles of the existing Housing Element, such as the rehabilitation of dilapidated units and intense housing development around the future BART station in the El Camino corridor, are strengthened through policies and programs included in the proposed Land Use Element and the Planning Sub-areas chapter. Safety The City does not have an existing Safety Element. The proposed Safety Element, included in Chapter 8: Health and Safety of the proposed General Plan Update, contains policies and pro- grams that address and mitigate the risk posed by hazards, including geological and seismic, flooding, hazardous materials and waste, and fire. With regards to geologic and seismic haz- azds, proposed General Plan policies require development proposals in seismically sensitive areas to complete geotechnical assessments prior to approval, encourage the retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings, and restrict special occupancy buildings from being built in seismically sensitive areas. The Safety Element also includes policies that require reviews of development proposals in the 100-year flood zones for adequate protection from flood haz- azds. Policies in Section 8.3: Waste Management and Recycling encourage the reduction of solid waste, increased rerycling, and compliance with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Additional policies call for a comprehensive fire management program to reduce fire hazards on public land and direct the City to explore incentives or programs as part of this program that would encourage private landowners to also reduce hazards on their property. Policies in section 8.5: Law Enforcement ensure that the City has adequate police staff and other resources to provide a timely response to all emergencies. Finally, policies ad- 3-30 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update dressing emergency management issues provide for the maintenance of the City's Emergency Response Plan to minimize the risk to life and property from the various hazards in the city. Noise Existing General Plan The existing Noise Element, approved in 1990, discusses noise impacts of both businesses and transportation facilities, including aircraft operations, streets and highways, rail, and indus- trial facilities. Policies in the Element are intended to protect noise sensitive uses -residential, schools, hospitals, and churches. All noise sensitive land uses developed within areas impacted by noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or more are required to include mitigation measures that re- duce interior noise levels to a maximum of 45 dB CNEL. The single major source of noise in South San Francisco is the San Francisco International Airport. Policies regarding airport noise stress cooperation with regional and local committees and plans, such as the Air- port/Community Roundtable, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, and the Regional Airport Plan. Proposed General Plan The proposed Noise Element addresses significant sources of noise in the city in addition to the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). These sources include major transportation corridors such as US 101 and Interstate 280, railroad noise, future BART extension, and ex- tensive industrial uses. Like in the existing element, the reduction of interior noise levels to less than 45 Db CNEL in areas within the 65 Db CNEL boundary is a policy. In addition, poli- cies address proposing a lower average noise standard and asingle-event noise standard to mitigate the impacts of noise that are impacted by single-event flyover noise and aircraft noise in areas outside the existing 65 dB CNEL boundary. The control of point source noise is also addressed by requiring noise-generating developments to reduce noise through site design, building design, landscaping, and other techniques. 3-31 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 3.5 PLANS OF SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS AND OTHER AGENCIES South San Francisco is completely surrounded by other jurisdictions, sharing its edges and major infrastructure with its neighboring communities. Existing and planned land uses in other cities can affect South San Francisco's alternatives for future growth by placing pressure on the city to absorb a certain use, limiting development options, or creating additional traffic within South San Francisco that will need to be considered in future analysis. Figure 3.5-1 shows the planned land uses along South San Francisco's edges. BRISBANE Brisbane adopted its General Plan in 1984. The areas of Brisbane that have the most bearing on South San Francisco are Sierra Point and the currently vacant Baylands area just north of South San Francisco along the Southern Pacific railroad line. The major features of Brisbane's General Plan include: • A focus on hotel and retail development, in keeping with the community's character. • Upgrading Crocker Park, the city's main industrial area, and providing more local- serving uses. • Developing the area west of the former Southern Pacific switching yards with retail, commercial, recreation, or R&D and warehousing, with residential uses as a potential component of a mixed-use project. • Significant office and commercial development at key sites: - A 102 acre business park and 30 acre marina at Sierra Point. The land use desig- nation is a special "Sierra Point Commercial/Retail/Office" which allows for such a wide range of uses as retail and personal services, professional or medical offices, hotels, recreation, or commercial uses. Sierra Point has some access problems to and from southbound US 101. - Preparation of and development under a specific plan and EIR at the 600-acre Baylands site. Under the Planned Development-Trade Commercial designation, the Baylands can be developed with a mixture of office, recreation, commercial, and light industrial uses. Lack of infrastructure and the presence of fill requires that a specific plan be prepared, and development costs will increase. A major shopping center is a potential use, but not widely supported in Brisbane's overall land use goals. Allowable FAR is 2.4 to the south and 4.8 to the north. • After mining operations cease, the quarry area is to be developed with some combi- nation of open space, health care or educational facilities, recreation, trade commer- cial, and R&D to an FAR of 2.0. There are environmental limitations in the area. 3-32 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update • Other parts of the city can generally have an intensity of 2.0-2.8 FAR. Central Bris- bane can have housing up to a density of 30 units per acre, with density in other areas approximately between two and six units per acre. Brisbane has set aside a considerable amount of land for higher-end office and R&D uses; however, access and infrastructure issues make the actual establishment of such uses uncer- tain. Retail development is not a primary strategy, and residential growth will be minimal. COLMA South San Francisco's neighbor to the northwest, Colma, is an unusual community in that it has very few residents, and most of the land is occupied by cemeteries. Cemetery owners in- corporated to avoid repeating the experience of being forced out of San Francisco following an ordinance prohibiting burials after 1901. Colma's 1987 General Plan calls for a buildout population of no more than 1,500 residents. Regional commercial facilities are located along Serramonte and Junipero Serra Boulevards. The Town sees the Cypress Hills area, with its southern border adjacent to South San Fran- cisco along Hillside Boulevard, as the major development opportunity in the community. A Master Plan is required for development in the area, generally focusing on residential and rec- reational uses, with a possible small neighborhood retail or service commercial center. Over- all, residential growth is limited to 50 new units per year. The Town does not propose major expansion of regional retail and commercial uses along Serramonte Boulevard. Colma is cur- rently updating its General Plan. DALY CITY Daly City's Serramonte neighborhood borders the Winston-Serra area of South San Fran- cisco, with its shopping centers providing a valuable retail resource for South San Francisco residents. This neighborhood contains four of the city's largest parcels of vacant land, two with severe building constraints. It has a mixture of residential, retail and commercial uses. Daly City's General Plan was prepared in 1987. Offices are planned on large parcels along Hickey and medium density residential uses are designated along I-280. The Plan emphasizes commercial and office development throughout the city. PACIFICA Pacifica borders South San Francisco at its westernmost edge. Pacifica's primary impact on South San Francisco is traffic; Westborough Boulevard connects to Sharp Park Road, Pacifica's major east-west boulevard. In addition, ridgeline development in Pacifica has the potential to affect views of the Santa Cruz Mountains from South San Francisco. 3-33 Chopter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco Generol Plon Update The Pacifica General Plan includes a policy to protect views along the ridgeline from the east. The plan, prepared in 1991, generally calls for low density residential development along Sky- line Boulevard, with a small multiple family and commercial development near the South San Francisco border at the intersection of Sharp Park (Westborough) Boulevard and Skyline. A County bicycle route along Sharp Park Boulevard presents an opportunity for a regional bicy- cle connection to Westborough Boulevard. Overall, a growth control ordinance has limited development to 70 units per year since 1982. Pacifica is currently considering updating its General Plan. SAN BRUNO San Bruno forms South San Francisco's southern border; its General Plan was prepared in 1984. The plan focuses on commercial and mixed use development and upgrading commu- nity services, as well as converting the area around the eastern end of Interstate 380 from small, fragmented warehouse and industrial uses to an industrial park. The San Bruno General Plan promotes annexation and development of lands owned by SFIA between the eastern city limit and US 101 with "clean" industrial uses such as warehouses and indoor recreational uses. However, this land has severe environmental and access constraints. Land along El Camino Real north of the Tanforan shopping center-the Western Division offices of .the US Navy-is expected to be developed with a mix of commercial, office and hotels once the site is vacated by the Navy in the next few years, under a master plan for the area that is under development. San Bruno is expected to initiate an update of its General Plan soon. BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has jurisdiction over projects in the San Francisco Bay and projects within 100 feet of its shoreline in the Planning Area. The BCDC has two fundamental objectives: • To protect the Bay as a natural resource for the benefit of present and future genera- tions, and • To develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay filling. The Commission's permit decisions are controlled by the McAteer-Petris Act, the State legis- lation which establishes the Agency and defines its authority. This Act prohibits placement of fill, that is any earth or structures, in San Francisco Bay unless they are forwater-oriented use. Water oriented uses do not include offices, residences, or roadways. The San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) policies include more specific guidance with regard to uses of the Bay and shoreline. The Bay Plan policies on recreation include several policies that are relevant to the East of 101 area. The park priority use area extends from the inlet on the Bay West Cove 06/29/99 3 - 34 Document I Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update (formerly Shearwater) property to Point San Bruno (near the Genentech Campus), including the entire "shoreline band", an area 100 feet wide running along the shoreline and parallel to the line of highest tidal action. Within such parks, only limited commercial facilities such as small restaurants are permitted. Golf courses, and playing fields should not be located on the shoreline, but further inland. 3-35 Chapter 3: Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 3-36 0 G `Y n ~ d rn ~~•,'G n ~, ~~ `~ a' V b~~ w G7 fD p ~ N ~ ~ ~~'~ ry b ~ ~J~:; ~.n~. (/~ r O r-^ ti w n w ~i~ O ~ ~ "' ~~n ~, ~ o " ~ b ~ o ^ ~ ~+ rn o0 '~ ~ V ~--~ ~D b N 'J b ~ ~ w .~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~ n ~~ o G ~' b 0 0 3 ~ N N ~f1 D a ~~ n c _~ Vf~ T ~ ~~ . ~ n ~ O ~ •~ cn l~ ~~~11 Cl ~ p ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~° Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Droft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4. Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis, and Mitigation This chapter contains the analysis of environmental impacts of the South San Francisco General Plan Update. Each environmental issue area also includes a description of the environmental setting, which was initially described in the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report (September 1997; Existing Conditions Report). Thresholds of Significance are established, beyond which impacts would be considered to be significant. Thresholds of Significance are based on current City policy and other normally accepted standards for environmental review. Mitigation measures are proposed for each issue area, and residual impacts are discussed. The environmental analysis assumes full implementation of the General Plan Update, new development projects, road and infrastructure improvements, and new community facilities and parks. This EIR does not consider phasing of land uses or interim development stages because such phasing is not established in the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update establishes along-term policy framework, and includes a land use and other diagrams for the City's Planning Area. A variety of regulatory tools are necessary to implement the diagrams and policy framework and to monitor implementation progress over time. Key regulatory tools include the Zoning Ordinance, as well as specific and area plans such as the East of 101 Area Plan, and street improvements that will be included in the City's Capital Improvements' Program. These regulatory tools will be considered in the analysis of impacts, in that the General Plan Update may use such tools to avoid or mitigate impacts. The setting summary here is excerpted from the Existing Conditions Report. The Existing Conditions Report is available for review at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division office, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Modifications to the original environmental settings for the following sections are indicated herein as redline for additions and s#~leee~t~ for deletions. 4-I Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.1 LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY Land Use Magnitude and Distribution of Uses South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decisions to initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San Bruno. The second development trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. South San Francisco's city limits encompass 4,298 net acres. Like many communities, single family residences are the most predominant land use, occupying 33 percent of the land in the city. However, industrial uses, including warehouses, manufacturing areas and business parks, also comprise over a quarter of South San Francisco's area. A land use analysis conducted as part of the General Plan also found that: Parks and open space occupy over 10 percent of the Planning Area, primarily concentrated in Sign Hill Park and the California Golf and Country Club. • Many of South San Francisco's growing or highest priority land uses currently occupy relatively little land. Business parks for high technology R&D and manufacturing use occupy only 173 acres, or 14 percent of the land in the industrial classification. Hotels and motels can be found on only 37 acres, or ten percent of the land in the commercial use classification. • Only ten_percent of the land in the Planning Area is vacant, and development has been approved or is under review for over half of this land. Development that is approved or under review includes '~ 1.131 housing units on ~9 141 acres and ~:b 3.4 million nonresidential square feet of floor space on~S3 201 acres. Vacant land is primarily concentrated in the East of 101 and Lindenville areas. 4-2 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Table 4. I - I Planning Area Existing Land Use ~ Land Use Net Acreage % of Total SF Residential '~ 1,646 33 MF Residential -1-89 183 4% Commercial 382 8% Industrial '~ 1.237 25% Park and Open Space 491 10% Public/Quasi-Public 490 10% Development Under Review/Approved2' 2s}3.342 67% Vacant 296 157 43 Subtotal 4,928 100% Open Water 58 Streets I , 174 Total 6, 160 1 Information on the Planning Area here includes unincorporated land surrounded by the city limits, and excludes the San Francisco Bay portion of the city. 2 Although Development Under Review/Approved is not strictly a land use, it is included in the analysis to distinguish such land from vacant parcels on which no development is proposed. 3 As of May 1999. Source: Dyett & Bhatio Planning Sub-areas The Planning Area was divided into 14 sub-areas to observe geographic trends in land use. The sub-areas were defined based on the types of uses, transportation routes, redevelopment plans or other plans within the area, and the types of change that may be occurring. Figure 4.1-2 shows the sub-areas into which the city has been divided for planning purposes. Sub-areas that are particularly noteworthy in the General Plan process are: • Doxmtown. The Downtown area contains some of South San Francisco's oldest residential and commercial areas, and is part of the Downtown/Central redevelopment area. • Sub-areas east of 101. The commercial and industrial area east of US 101 contains most of South San Francisco's developable and redevelopable land. The area was the subject of an in-depth study in the early 1990s, resulting in an area plan. As new priorities and strategies emerge from the General Plan process, they can enhance the development policies already existing in the area. The area has four distinct sub-areas: 4-5 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update • East of 101. This area primarily houses commercial uses, light industry and warehousing and many of South San Francisco's business parks, including the 72- acre Genentech property. • Gateway. This area is comprised of the Gateway Specific Plan/ Redevelopment area. The area is being developed with a mixture of business parks, high-rise offices, R&D, and visitor services. Twenty-two percent of the area remains vacant, but almost all lots have development proposals pending. • Oyster Point. The Oyster Point Marina and Business Park were constructed on fill in the 1960s and were central to South San Francisco's post-industrial development strategy. The area also contains the Shearwater site, for which a Specific Plan is being prepared that calls for a mix of office, hotel and retail uses, and the vacant Koll site located on Sierra Point. • South Airport. Hotels and the South San Francisco Conference Center along South Airport Boulevard and near San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) comprise the city's existing core of visitor commercial services. The area also contains the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant and the SamTrans bus facility. • El Camino. The El Camino Real corridor is the city's most diverse area in terms of land use. In addition to commercial services and multifamily housing, the area contains the See's Candies manufacturing plant, the Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility, and the future BART station. There are several opportunities for redevelopment. • Lindenville. This area is mainly occupied by small-scale warehouses and light industrial uses. Many of the parcels are small compared to their industrial counterparts east of 101. Primary redevelopment opportunities exist on the GSA property on San Mateo Avenue and the DuPont property on South Linden Avenue. Lindenville is the source of many use conflicts in the city, but also contains major employers • Orange Park South San Francisco's main park is the centerpiece of this subarea. The area also contains a mixture of single- and multifamily housing and public services. Residential development consisting of 153 single-family homes is under construction on air X819-acre parcel adjacent to Orange Park_ . The Baden residential subdivision was developed even before incorporation of the city, and needs substantial upgrading and preservation. • Westborough. Developed after Interstate 280 was built in the 1970s, Westborough contains a substantial concentration of townhomes. Three residential projects are underway that will add 135 condos and 34 single-family homes to this neighborhood. Some vacant parcels remain, but are seriously constrained by steep slopes. 4-6 0 lam// ~~ r 0 0 0 ~~~ ~ ~~/~ 0 0 a ~ z z b b ®. ~ ' ~~ ti. l b ~ o b O i z f1 ® '-- y y ~ f h O ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,, 4' , ~ I ~ ~ ~, r T ~ ~~ ~'~, ~ , ~ ~ ~ p ~ [ ... ~c~ . ~ ~~ 1 ~ N N ~ i i ~}~: 11 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update HOtl5ing Over 57 percent of South San Francisco's X620,175 housing units are single-family detached units, a proportion that has been declining slightly in the 1990s and is likely to continue decreasing as Terrabay and other proposed development is completed. Townhomes and other single family attached housing comprise 12 percent of South San Francisco's housing stock, a relatively high proportion compared to San Mateo County as a whole. Housing growth had been modest during the early 1990s, but the residential market has recently gained strength; over ~89~1,100 additional units are approved or under review. South San Francisco has high residential densities. The average net density is 8.2 units per acre for single family areas and 33.1 units per acre for multiple family areas, for a citywide average of 10.7 units per net acre. The city is characterized by an absence of "large lot" residential areas, and many homes are on lots of 5,000 square feet or less. While hillside areas in other cities are commonly developed with larger lot single family housing, South San Francisco's hills are home to the Westborough and upcoming Terrabay townhome developments. Single-family and multifamily housing are almost entirely separated from one another, except in the Downtown area. Commercial South San Francisco has identifiable commercial clusters, each with its own particular market. Commercial uses are almost entirely located along the city's major arterials (see Figure 4.1-3): Airport Boulevard/US 101. Airport and South Airport Boulevards are lined with service commercial, hotels and motels, and comparison or general retail such as Levitz furniture, Costco, and Office Depot. Downtown. Small, locally-owned neighborhood stores are located along Grand and Linden avenues, comprising the city's traditional commercial core. Stores in the Downtown area generally serve the surrounding residential communities, although some restaurants also draw from a larger area east of US 101. While South San Francisco's other commercial centers are generally automobile-oriented and often under single ownership, Downtown is pedestrian-oriented and contains a variety of types of stores under different ownership. Downtown is South San Francisco's most unique commercial center and arguably has the most to offer to the city's identity of all of the centers. • El Camino Real. Most of South San Francisco's neighborhood commercial centers are concentrated along El Camino Real. Kaiser Permanente and See's Candies are two of the city's major employers. Many of the commercial uses along the corridor are characterized by small sites with inadequate parking. • Westborough. Several major retailers are located west of Interstate 280 along Westborough Boulevard. Westborough's two shopping centers meet a variety of convenience and service needs, and particularly cater to the city's large Asian community. 4-9 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Although these commercial districts are scattered across South San Francisco, the degree of concentration of commercial uses within these four areas makes commercial services inconvenient to residents in many of the large single-family residential areas in the city. Industrial Industry is one of South San Francisco's most prominent land uses, and central to the city's identity and economy. There are a number of issues surrounding continued industrial operations in South San Francisco. • Heavy manufacturing with noxious or harmful impacts is a nonconforming use under the current General Plan. Manufacturing nevertheless represents an important sector of South San Francisco's economy. • More intense industrial development through redevelopment of warehousing areas is a priority for the City. Business parks are much more intense than existing uses, and adequate infrastructure is needed to support greater industrial intensification. • Extensive and growing warehousing and freight forwarding operations are placing a considerable net burden on City services. Prior analysis has found that freight forwarding has relatively low per acre revenues, while the associated truck traffic and off-site parking accelerate wear and tear on streets and often impact neighboring uses. Major Development Projects Major projects occurring today are already reshaping South San Francisco, adding housing, offices, R&D facilities, and hotels to some of the key areas of the city. The development activity is in part due to the strong regional residential and commercial development markets, as well as South San Francisco's efforts to encourage development through redevelopment and specific and area plans. Figure 4.1-4 shows the sites of projects that are currently approved or under review, as well as vacant land. Table 4.1-2 describes the approved development in each subarea of the city. As the table shows, some areas are undergoing extensive change. Oyster Point, Gateway, the El Camino corridor, and the Terrabay area all have major planned or approved development projects. The housing development market is particularly active in South San Francisco. The major project under construction is the Terrabay development on the south slopes of San Bruno Mountain, which at full buildout will total 745 units (including 125 single-family homes). Westborough is also an active area, with ~i6126 units approved or under construction. The El Camino corridor and nearby Sunshine Gardens have several major residential projects, including the recently-completed 96-unit Camino Court condominiums, the additional 80 s~gle-sin e-family units at Chestnut Estates, and the ~3-212 units under construction at the former McLellan Nursery site. An additional 153 single-family homes are under construction just east of Orange Park. Major commercial and industrial projects that have been approved or are under review include hotels in the Gateway, Oyster Point and South Airport areas totaling over 98&1,500 rooms, as well as tw 4- 10 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigotion Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update e~}lehotels at Terrabay. Industrial projects approved or under review include 105,000 square feet of R&D buildings at Oyster Point. Genentech has also recently undergone major expansion, which is not reflected in the table. Under the current Specific Plan, the Terrabay project will include a two hotels, 286,000 square feet of high tech space, 397,000 square feet of offices, three restaurants, and a health club. These figures represent the maximum buildout numbers; the Specific Plan is currently being amended. Most of South San Francisco's vacant land is concentrated in the industrial areas east of US 101 and in Orange Park. Redevelopment of property in these areas and along the El Camino Corridor will provide additional opportunities for future change. The City is currently proposing,an expansion of the El Camino Redevelopment area. Initial efforts are underway for over ~S9;A891.2 million square feet of additional office, R&D, hotel and commercial development east of US 101, including Oyster Point, Sierra Point, Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater), and Gateway. 4- I I Chapter 4: Environmental Setling, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.1-2 Approved Development by Subarea. May 1999 Residential Commercial/Industrial Dens' Building Intensi Su6orea Acres Units Units/net Acres Floor Area FAR acre S uore Feet Avalon Downtown 0.8 22.500 0.65 East of I OI 14.3 372.818 0.60 EI Camino 31.1 212 6_8 12.8 160.000 0.29 Gateway 61.6 938.000 0.35 Lindenville Orange Park 19.1 155 88 1 00 1 600 0.14 Oyster Point 73.6 816.204 0.25 Paradise Vallev/Terrabay 72.6 575 7_9 35.3 1.001.000 0.65 Si n Hill South Airport 2_5 73.000 0.67 Sunshine Gardens Westborough 12.6 126 10.0 Winston-Serra 10.5 63 6_0 Total 141.1 1.131 8_0 201.0 3.384.122 0.39 Source: Dyett & Bhotio 4- 12 0 G ti n 0 ~-n 0 G CJ. Cn ., w 0 b ~ o ~ ~ a ~ ~ Y r" ~' o a ~ ~ ~ w R. m3I N 1` N ~F Cx d n w r a a 3 `o' ~, ~ ~. o ~' -~ n cn w -~ ~'` ~. .\ ,: ~,~` ~~ i' /// ~ d ~; d Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Current Plans Several planning efforts from the 1980s and 1990s will play a role in the General Plan preparation process. The City's current General Plan was prepared in 1982 and amended in 1986. Many of the approaches called for in the 1982 plan have been or are being implemented, including establishment of the Downtown/Central redevelopment area, development of Terrabay, and intensification of housing in the El Camino Real corridor near the future BART station. The plan also established some important policy directions, such as prohibiting future development of intensive industry and requiring infrastructure improvements or funding agreements in the Country Club Park area before incorporation may take place. Specific and area plan districts are shown in Figure 4.1-4. The current redevelopment areas are shown in Figure 4.2-5. Other important plans that will be a factor in the South San Francisco General Plan Update include: • The East of 101 Area Plan, which currently guides development in the East of 101 area; • Specific plans for key development areas, including Oyster Point and Tenabay; and • Redevelopment plans for many of the areas with the greatest potential for change, including Gateway, Downtown/Central, and the El Camino Corridor. The Citv recently~roposed expanding the El Camino Redevelopment area 4- 15 _~----1 .. D - ~ ~-- ~ ~~ f o .~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C/~ o D 9~ H~ ~ ~ -~ o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ 0 0 ./ 0 o ~ 3 r N m %1 Z > y Y ~+ ~;~'. 0 ~ ,! ~~i O ~, 0 0 0 G ~' a. s a .fir O .d ~r~ .~' ~ ~ u r y ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ r , f x'11 ~ ~ +~ ~ r T" > , ~ ,.. ~ ,~ ~;; n o_ B v 0 ~. 0 3 (m/t `I o N ,~~ 0 `~~~~~~~ Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Other Jurisdictions External impacts from land uses and activities in surrounding cities and jurisdictions need to be considered when evaluating development prospects. By and large, none of the surrounding cities have planned uses that are likely to have a direct physical impact on South San Francisco. In its General Plan, the City of Brisbane outlines a development strategy for its bayside parcels similar to South San Francisco's strategies east of 101, potentially affecting South San Francisco's future development potential. If this development occurs, Brisbane could compete with South San Francisco for office space or potentially increase traffic in the area; however, Brisbane still needs to overcome major infrastructure and environmental constraints before this development is likely to begin. San Francisco International Airport has a major direct and indirect influences on South San Francisco's land use and economic prospects. Airport-imposed height restrictions and noise limit land use options in some parts of the city. However, a greater impact could stem from airport expansion, fueling growth in airport-supportive or -dependent uses such as freight forwarding, and the resulting demand for housing and other services in South San Francisco. Land use in some parts of South San Francisco are under the auspices of different jurisdictions, including: • The 100-foot strip of bayshore, inland of the mean high tide line, for which the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) establishes policy in the Bay Plan; • Oyster Point, which is designated a Park Priority Area by the BCDC in the Bay Plan; • The area around and including the Terrabay project, which is within the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Area; and • The azea constrained by the Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 height limits, primarily East of 101, in Lindenville, and in the Country Club Park area. The azeas in which these agencies have jurisdiction are shown in figure 4.1-6. Airport-related height limits in the city aze shown in figure 4.1-7. 4-21 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update 4 - 22 0 ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ °, ~ x ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O n y ~' O w G O ~ ~ ~ ~ w. ~ a ~ O ~ w ~ ~•~ ~• b b w C. ~ O ~- ~~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ n ~ ° ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~--~ FyC~( ,~ w f/~i y ^ • o (D ~~j "V ~ p ~ p 'J~ V ~ O ~ ~ ~ O P~ J v, r~ p~ r+ O n 0 1 ~~h 0 0 ~~1 a: ~/ _~ _ ~ ~~ ~~ 3 r N m N _~~--`~ ~~ ~ O ~, w '° D ~ 0 g\~~ 0 0 ~~~, -~ ~o l\ 0 G ., 0 n 0 G b 0 r w a C b x ... r O \\` O \ \ C \\ (~ 3 r N m 'z =__ ~-. z a ~ z b T A z b b ? ~ o `~ z b n (~ O ~, \ \ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ '~ v 1 U S- ._ l c~ { ~ / n~ q ~' ~~, r bpi ~ ~°~ y r ~r ~~ 9 fig f °{p `~ ~*~ ~ ~y~r~'~~ t ~~,~ ~ ~;, ~ . ~ ~ .. ,. ~~ ~. .R,tiz e~r~ ~~ ~ ~I /, ~ ~ (~ ---__ ~ ~ i i~ti, ~ °.. 1 ~~ a ~r , Q ~~. 9 Y 4ke, ~~:~ i ! ~ ~ "~ x~`~t. i,\ n~ ~ iy~ fl/ ~A~ ~~ ~,, ~r, ~-,~' ~t Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report (or South San Francisco General Plan Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan if it would result in one or more of the following: Creation of land use incompatibilities between proposed development and existing neighborhoods (for example, housing or other sensitive uses adjacent to uses that generate noise/other noxious by-products). • Conversion of substantial areas of open space. • Displace a large number of businesses. Land use impacts are not, in and of themselves, environmental impacts. They consist primarily of compatibility issues related to noise, traffic, visual qualities, and air quality, which are discussed in other sections of this DEIR. This section focuses on key community features emphasized in the proposed General Plan including neighborhood-oriented development, redevelopment of older industrial areas, and the reinforcement of the Downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center. City-wide, these are the "land use" components that have surfaced as key issues of community concern. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.1-a Changes in land use designations may result in .the creation of land use incompatibilities between proposed development and existing neighborhoods. Land use compatibility describes the state in which a land use exists and functions without creating a nuisance, hazardous, or unhealthful condition with an adjacent land use. Compatible land uses could include, for example, residential land uses next to parks, industrial uses next to airports, or offices next to light industrial uses. An incompatible land use is thought generally to create a conflict with another use for example, residential uses next to heavy industrial uses or schools adjacent to airports. Various sections of this DEIR address issues normally considered "compatibility issues", including visual resources (discussed separately in Section 4.2, Urban Design), traffic (Section 4.3, Transportation), noise (Section 4.5, Noise), and biological resources (Section 4.14, Biological Resources). These issues are not addressed further under this discussion of land use compatibility. The General Plan would not designate any new areas that maybe incompatible with existing, adjacent land uses. The majority of new development will be through redevelopment of existing land uses that are no longer viable. Additional residential development will primarily occur through infill and intensification of the Downtown residential area. This additional development would be required to follow development standards to reinforce Downtown's traditional development pattern. The proposed General Plan included policies and programs that would reduce existing land use conflicts between residential and industrial uses by 4-27 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update improving buffering in transition areas of the city. For example, performance-based standards for industrial development would address issues such as noise, glare, odor, air quality, and screening of parking and loading areas. Establishment of these is especially critical where industrial uses come in contact with other uses, such as the Mayfair, Orange Park, and Downtown neighborhoods near Lindenville. There will be no significant impact with implementation of the proposed General Plan. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan The proposed General Plan provides policies targeted at minimizing potential land use conflicts, as presented below: 3.1-I-3 Do not permit any commercial and office uses in area designated Downtown Residential. 3.1-I-5 Establish development standards in the Municipal Code to reinforce Downtown's traditional development pattern. 3.2-G-5 Improve buffering between industrial areas in Lindenville and surrounding residential neighborhoods. 3.3-G-1 Establish use designations and design standards that recognize Spruce Corridor's role as a buffer between the industrial areas to the east and the Mayfair/Orange Park neighborhoods to the west. 3.3-I-2 Do not permit any new warehouse/distribution, manufacturing, or auto-related uses in the corridor. Policies 3.1-I-3 and 3.1-I-5 reduce land use conflicts in the Downtown residential neighborhood. Policies 3.2-G-5, 3.3-G-1, and 3.3-I-2 direct the City to improve buffering between residential and industrial uses. Buffering would reduce opportunities for industrial activities to create a nuisance to residential uses, and minimize noise to sensitive receptors from heavy equipment and vehicle use. 2-I-16 Work with San Mateo County to resolve issues relating to land use conflicts in the unincorporated "islands." 3.6-I-4 Annex the unincorporated islands in the area only after improvements to deficient utility and roadway systems are made or otherwise guaranteed by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and/or by the affected property owners. Churches and other institutional land uses in the unincorporated Country Club park subdivision have been creating conflicts with surrounding residential areas. Parking, noise, and traffic within the city limits are exacerbated by the concentration of churches in this small area. Policy 3.6-I-4 calls for the City to incorporate the area as a whole, with infrastructure improvements funded by the County or by property owners. 3.2-I-3 Establish aloft-style live/work overlay district for the area bounded by Colma Creek to the south, South Linden Avenue to the east, Railroad Avenue to the north, and west to the City Corporation Yard. Establish specific performance-based requirements 4-28 Chapier 4: Environmentol Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmentol Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update and use compatibility standards for the district and ensure that such development does not limit or impinge upon uses consistent with the underlying base Mixed Industrial designation. Policy 3.2-I-3 specifically addresses new live/work development in the mixed industrial area. Development standards, such as building setbacks, building height and intensity limitations, would be established to reduce conflicts with surrounding industrial uses. Implementation of the General Plan including proposed policies 3.2-G-5, 3.3-G-1, 3.3-I-2, 2- I-16, 3.6-I-4, and 3.2-I-3 would ensure land use compatibility resulting in a less than significant impact. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.1-b Development of vacant open space land may substantially reduce open space land area. The Land Use Element designates sites within the Planning Area with environmental and/or safety constraints as Open Space. Examples of these constraints are slopes greater than 30 percent, sensitive habitats, wetlands, creekways, areas subject to flooding, and power transmission line corridors. Where otherwise not excluded by noise, aircraft safety or other environmental standards, development is limited to housing at a density not to exceed one housing unit per 20 acres. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in the conversion of substantial areas of open spaces within the Planning Area to urban uses. However, a limited number of small vacant sites will get converted to urban uses. Examples include some sites near Orange Park that have few environmental constraints or resources. South San Francisco's unusual geographic features provide numerous opportunities for unique open space areas. Over the years, the City has taken advantage of these opportunities, and is continuing to put effort into improving access to the bayfront and the hills. The city's primary open space features include: • Sign Hill, the city's major open space area, remains as 22 acres of open space surrounding the national landmark sign. The 43-acre northern portion of Sign Hill is under private holdings and is designated open space. • The Bayfront area includes 29 acres of public access areas and the Oyster Point Park and Marina. Public access enhancements are required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission when development occurs on bayfront parcels. Oyster Point Park is an 18.5-acre, water oriented recreation facility with seating and picnic areas, a fishing pier, and aboat-launching ramp. • 54 acres of common greens area owned by homeowners' associations and the City, particularly in the Westborough and Willow Gardens area. In these neighborhoods, the area is mainly open space for the surrounding condominiums, but also provides several children's play areas. 4-29 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update • Two steep lots in Westborough include nearly 21 acres. These lots would undergo a change in land use classification in the proposed General Plan as they are currently designated high-density residential. • California Golf Course includes 170 acres of developed open space. This land is unincorporated. Although the current General Plan open space classification includes parks and schools in addition to vacant open space, the segregation of these into separate, more specific categories (Park and Recreation, Public, and Open Space) does not constitute a loss of open space that would increase the level of this impact. The General Plan Update proposes several new parks in existing residential and employment areas that would meet the need of new and existing residents. The General Plan provides for 108 acres of new parkland in South San Francisco, in part by maintaining the existing parkland standard for new residents and setting a new standard for new employees. Open Space parkland will be established along the bayfront (29 acres) and existing public utility and transportation rights-of--way (40.5 acres). Two vacant open space sites that are/were formerly designated open space in the existing general plan would change land use classification with implementation of the proposed general plan. These sites include the Terrabay residential and commercial development and El Rancho Highlands residential development (formerly El Rancho school). However, both of these sites are under construction with projects that were approved before the proposed General Plan, so the loss of these open space sites does not constitute an impact associated with the proposed General Plan. Thus, implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in a substantial conversion of open space. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan Several General Plan chapters contain specific policies aimed at protecting open space and ensuring long-term maintenance. These policies and programs include: 5.1-G-3 Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open space; improve access to existing facilities where feasible. 7.1-G-2 Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and wetlands. 7.1-I-5 Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects. Policies 7.1-G-2 and 7.1-I-5 would conserve in open space the saltmarshes and wetlands along portions of the city's southern bayshore. Since the City ability to fund these projects is limited, polity 7.1-I-5 directs the City's to seek funding for restoration projects from a variety of sources. Alternative sources of funding may include development projects impacting Bay wetlands and habitat that require wetland restoration as a mitigation measure, such as the expansion of the San Francisco International Airport. 4-30 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. With policy 2-G-6, the City would promote infill development that would accommodate additional growth from within the City while maintaining the existing open space areas. 3.8-I-2 Ensure that any new housing development on the north face of Sign Hill is in keeping with its Open Space designation, in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan for Sign Hill, results in minimal grading, and is clustered at the foot of the hill. Permit residential development at a density no greater than one housing unit per 10 acres, provided that one housing unit may be built on each legal parcel. Policy 3.8-I-2 expresses the desire to maintain the vacant north face of Sign Hill as open space to the extent feasible by limiting development density, respecting natural topography, and minimizing visual prominence of development in these areas. Collectively, policies 5.1-G-3, 2-G-6, 3.8-I-2 would minimize the conversion of open space within the city, reducing this impact to less than significant level. The overall amount of open space land in the city would increase since additional parkland open space along the bayshore and BART and other utility rights-of--way would be protected. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested The impact is reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.1-c New development could displace existing businesses. There would be no significant displacement of businesses as a result of the General Plan. The Plan provides for 5.6 million square feet of new office, research and development, commercial, retail, and hotel development and over 3.4 million square feet of non-residential development is approved or currently under review. While new development is primarily concentrated in the East of 101, Terrabay, and Lindenville areas, land use policies ensure that established areas are not unduly impacted. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant displacement of businesses. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan The proposed General Plan includes policies aimed at preventing the displacement of businesses in the city. These policies are included below. 2-G-4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service commercial businesses at specific locations. 3.2-I-3 Establish aloft-style live/work overlay district for the area bounded by Colma Creek to the south, South Linden Avenue to the east, Railroad Avenue to the north, and west to the City Corporation Yard. Establish specific performance-based requirements and use compatibility standards for the district and ensure that such development 4-31 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impoct Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impoct Report for South San Francisco Genera! Plan Update does not limit or impinge upon uses consistent with the underlying base Mixed Industrial designation. Policy 2-G-4 and 3.2-I-3 express the desire to ensure the continuation and expansion of industrial uses in selected areas in the city. The City recognizes that many existing manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution uses perform an important regional function. 2-G-5 Maintain Downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities. 3.2-I-6 Ensure that retail facilities at the new regional shopping center at the Victory Avenue/US 101 interchange do not compete with Downtown establishments by permitting only a limited number of smaller stores, restaurants, and offices that could otherwise be located in Downtown. Policy 2-G-5 guides the city to maintain the Downtown, the city's most unique commercial center. Policy 3.2-I-6 minimizes the impact of the proposed regional shopping center on Downtown businesses. This policy ensures that the Downtown serves its purpose of fostering community identity and sustains the area's vitality and economic well-being. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested The impact is reduced to a level below significance. No additional mitigation measures are required. RESIDUAL IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed General Plan would prevent significant impacts associated with land use from occurring. Impacts associated with land use would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan and no further mitigation is required. 4-32 Chapier 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.2 URBAN DESIGN AND AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for urban design and aesthetics is contained in Chapter 4: Urban Design of the Existing Conditions Report. Urban Form South San Francisco's urban form-from elements such as street grid patterns and block sizes, to the character of buildings and street design in different parts of the city-is strongly evocative of the City's evolution and development pattern. Few areas have been transformed since they were first developed, providing insight into the basis behind the City's physical characteristics. Changes currently taking place, including the evolution of the East of 101 area and the BART extension to South San Francisco, can provide the opportunity to physically redefine key areas of the community. South San Francisco's edges are well-defined by geographic features such as hills and San Francisco Bay. Corridors play an extremely important role in defining the City's form. Freeways and major arterials serve to fragment the city into four major segments -the area west of Junipero Serra (Westborough), between Junipero Serra and El Camino Real, the area between El Camino Real and US 101, and the area east of US 101. Connections between these different city segments are extremely limited Neighborhood Form Analysis The urban design analysis focused on five 100-acre areas in different neighborhoods in order to identify urban design issues across the city. Figure 4.2-1 delineates the city's neighborhoods. Analysis areas included Downtown, Brentwood, Buri-Buri, Westborough, and the East of 101 area. The following key findings emerged: • Neighborhood accessibility and overall ease of movement have declined over time, as neighborhoods were progressively designed to discourage through traffic and became increasingly self-contained. Downtown, and to some degree Brentwood, have more through streets, blocks, intersections, and connections to other neighborhoods than the newer areas of the city. • The physical pattern of Downtown lends itself better to employment-intensive uses than the East of 101 area. In particular, East of 101 has extremely large blocks, making it difficult for pedestrians and vehicles to move around and through the area. Figure 4.2-2 presents analysis of the structural components of urban form of five neighborhoods, representing different phases of South San Francisco's history. A viewshed analysis was conducted for the Planning Area, as shown in Figure 4.2-3. This analysis revealed that the ridgeline and upper slope of San Bruno Mountain, the south slope of Sign Hill, and 4-33 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report fbr South San Francisco General Plan Update the west slope of Point San Bruno are visible from two viewpoints in the city which are located in Westborough and Downtown. EI Camino Real Maintaining its historical importance as a transportation route and commercial center, El Camino Real is one of the community's primary focal points. It is one of the most diverse areas of the city, with uses ranging from major employers such as See's Candies and Kaiser Permanente to supermarkets and other neighborhood commercial uses to housing. The new BART station at Hickey Boulevard will provide the impetus for transformation of the corridor, particularly on vacant and underutilized parcels near the BART station area. This potential redevelopment will provide the opportunity to create a new visual identity for the northern portion of El Camino Real in the city. 4 - 34 0 ~~ { \ r,,, ~ ~ ~.~ ~._ -, >`~,~ ~ti` n 0 v ~`C D w Z ~ Z 3 Z 3 o v- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~. ~ m Fn" ~ ~ ~ D n H VI o~, w O ~ N o -I ~ C ~ n ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ [n N ~~ A 3 r N m ~..~ ~; 0 o a/ ~ " ~% 0 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan if it would result in one or more of the following: • Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Substantial change to community character (for example, development type, open space pattern or substantial reduction in views). Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.2-a Future development, unless carefully sited and designed, maybe inconsistent with the existing scale, style, and character of existing development in the surrounding area. Such development could result in views that are aesthetically offensive. The aesthetic resources of the City-the shoreline, creeks, ridgelines, tree cover, and vegetation-could potentially be impacted by new development unless it is thoughtfully sited and designed. The Draft General Plan contains several policies and programs specifically designed to minimize negative aesthetic impacts, included primarily in Chapter 3: Planning Sub-areas. The policies are specific to the sub-areas in order to address particular issues in the city's sub- areas. These policies and programs reduce the cumulative impact to a level that is less than significant. Site-specific impacts on particular views must be assessed during the CEQA review for each site. The policies and programs of the Draft General Plan provide the framework for ensuring that site-specific impacts will also be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan Applicable General Plan policies include: 2-I-2 Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated on Figure 2-3. For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately by underlying base district uses. Policy 2-I-2 minimizes the visual prominence of new development by imposing height limitations in specific areas of the city. 5.1-I-8 Improve the accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill Park and the bayfront. 3.8-I-2 Ensure that any new housing development on the north face of Sign Hill is in keeping with its Open Space designation, in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan for Sign Hill, results in minimal grading, and is clustered at the foot of the hill. 4-41 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Permit residential development at a density no greater than one housing unit per 10 acres, provided that one housing unit may be built on each legal parcel. 3.9-I-2 Prior to the recordation of any additional Subdivision map for Stonegate Ridge, require dedication of the 7.1-acre slope area located adjacent to Sign Hill Park. Sign Hill and the Bayfront are the City's most significant aesthetic resources, as shown in Figure 4.2-3. Sign Hill is a prominent feature defining the South San Francisco community. Proposed policies 5.1-I-8, 3.8-I-2, and 3.9-I-2 are aimed at retaining and enhancing opportunities to view Sign Hill and the bayfront to enhance their visual prominence in the city. Policy 3.8-I-2 and 3.9-I-2 are aimed at minimizing the visual prominence of future development on the privately owned lots on Sign Hill. Clustered housing would be required in this area, concentrating development in less visually prominent areas and leaving in open space those areas visible to surrounding uses. The policies and programs included in the Draft General Plan substantially reduce the impacts that new development has on aesthetic resources. New development will be guided by policies and programs that require compatibility with the surrounding environment and existing land uses. While some change in views cannot be avoided entirely, the policies and programs of the Draft General Plan provide the framework for reducing the visual effects of new development to less than significant levels. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested Impact 4.2-a is reduced to a level that is less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required. Impact 4.2-b Future development could result in a substantial change to community character. The proposed General Plan contains many policies that apply to a variety of community character issues that relate to a finer (for example, neighborhood) scale than land use issues described herein. These policies would be new tools for the City to reinforce and strengthen the Downtown as a community center, and establish design, land use, and development intensity guidelines for various uses, including Business and Technology Parks. The policies are designed to maintain a high degree of harmony with the environmental setting of the City and the scale and character of existing development. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would reduce the impact on community character to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan The proposed General Plan contains the following policies specific to the preservation of community character within the city: Z-G-1 Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. 4-42 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Updaie 2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. Proposed General Plan polity 2-G-1 and 2-G-6 aim at protecting the character of existing residential neighborhoods. While some parts of the city are expected to undergo change over time, the General Plan seeks to ensure that existing residential neighborhoods are fully protected from changes elsewhere in the City. 2-I-7 Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strategy. 2-I-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods. The establishment of design standards and guidelines strategy in policy 2-I-7 would preserve the character of the city's neighborhoods and commercial areas. While the City has residential design guidelines in place, these do not address issues such as garage domination of streets, or the introverted or gated nature of some recent developments. Policy 2-I-9 ensures that the design standards and guidelines referred to in policy 2-I-7 would be harmonious with the existing patterns and characteristics of the city's neighborhoods. 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. 2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve the community orientation of new development. Policies 2-G-8 and 2-I-8 seek to ensure that new development will be community oriented. A community orientation calls for greater attention to the relationship between residences, streets and shared spaces, and does not require sacrifice of privacy or amenities. Because new development is expected only in targeted areas, instead of trying to prepare all encompassing citywide guidelines, efforts may probably be better directed at standards/guidelines focused on specific geographic areas. Several tools are available to structure the Zoning Ordinance to be responsive to the City's urban fabric rather than imposing a unified set of standards, including: community character based districts; special districts (base or overlay) targeted at areas with unique development characteristics, as well as performance-based standards that allow flexibility. Additional policies for the twelve sub-areas of the Planning Area are included in Chapter 3: Planning Sub-areas of the proposed General Plan Update. These policies address specific design issues in the sub-areas. Implementation of these policies, as well as the policies listed above, would result in beneficial impacts to existing neighborhoods and business areas in the city, and the impact would be reduced to less than significant levels. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigations are required. 4-43 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmentol Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Residual Impacts Significant impacts associated with urban design and aesthetics would be prevented from occurring through implementation of the proposed General Plan. There would be no residual impacts and no further mitigation is required. 4-44 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.3 TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for transportation is contained in Chapter 5: Transportation of the Existing Conditions Report. A summary of Chapter 5 is presented below. Transportation System The transportation system serving South San Francisco is comprised of the roadway system, transit and public transportation, and alternative modes including informal carpools, formal vanpools, employer-sponsored shuttles, bicycling and walking. South San Francisco is served by two major north-south freeways-US 101 and I-280-and is also close to I-380 running east-west. A system of surface streets collects and distributes traffic to and from the freeways and between the commercial, industrial, and residential areas of the city. Commuter rail service is provided between South San Francisco and San Francisco to the north and San Jose/Gilroy to the south. Additional passenger rail service will be provided to South San Francisco by the BART extension. Local bus service is currently provided to areas of South San Francisco west of US 101. The transit needs of the East of 101 area are served with shuttle buses to and from nearby Caltrain and BART stations during commute hours only. Opportunities for future transit service to this area include the proposed Airport Light Rail (ART) System, being constructed as part of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) expansion. At present, few birycle facilities are located in South San Francisco. Possible future facilities include the Bay Trail, a linear park on the BART extension right-of--way, and an east-west link between the two in the East of 101 area. Roadway System The operations of roadways are described with the term level of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description ranging from Level A, or free flow operations with little or no delay, to Level F, or oversaturated conditions with excessive delays. LOS E represents conditions at-capacity. The 1995 Congestion Management Program for San Mateo County reports I-280 operating at LOS F and US 101 operating at LOS D in the vicinity of South San Francisco during peak commute hours. Levels of service were calculated for the city's roadway segments with current counts (see Figure 4.3-1) based on volume-to-capacity ratios. The level of service results are presented in table 4.3-1. The Countywide Transportation Plan contains 2010 traffic projections on US 101 and I-280 These projections recognize the effects of two major transportation infrastructure improvements-the proposed BART and Caltrain extension projects-projecting operations of LOS F on US 101 and LOS E on I-280. 4-45 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Current congestion on South San Francisco streets occurs along the Oyster Point Boulevard, E. Grand Avenue. Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard corridors and on Westborough Boulevard near the I-280 interchange and the Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection. Other locations with congestion include the intersection of El Camino Real with Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and the Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/US 101 interchange. During the evening peak commute period, East Grand Avenue under the US 101 overpass has some back-up. The East of 101 Area Plan prepared in 1994 presents several intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E and F) under future conditions with growth and development in that area. The plan identified improvements to accommodate the traffic generated by the anticipated growth. A detailed transportation analysis of the East of 101 area is currently being prepared to assess land use revisions of the 1994 Plan The results of this updated analvsis will be a set of transportation system improvements to accommodate current rg owth projections in that area of South San Francisco. In general, the city's transportation system can adequately serve existing travel demand. Most travel is conveyed by automobile and the roadway system within the city has capacity to accommodate additional growth. However, traffic volumes on the regional roadways that provide access to the city, US 101 and I-280, are projected to exceed their capacities during commute periods. Therefore, other modes of transportation will be needed to accommodate regional travel. 4-46 0 o 0 0 0 ~ G C ~~'... ~ ~ O ~ ti ~ ~ w L" ~ ~. ~ ~•.' ~-' ~ 0 '-Y ( h_ b w 0 0 n J' ~ ~,; ~ (~D ~ H ~ • O ~ ~ Q+ w ~ ~o ~O V •t i:....t o a ` `.... ~ t, 3 N -<,z ~< ~ ~, , ~. z b ~{ ~ ` ~ a ~ y z y o z ~~ Cn ~ a, ; ~ ~ o ~, ~ , M : ~~--- ~,~ '?'' o n ~~~• ~ w N ~, ~ . :; . Q }~ C ~ f"t ~ fD . ~i1~: f% ..~- N cn O cn ;~ ~~ P,,: I ~' ~ _, I ~~ ~ti ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~. ~ n 0 Pacific Ocean .... ...~ ,: -~..._...M.. ..... --~~,. ~ ... w .. t ! ~~v Y ~.'w ~~ ,. ~:. ". w ~; ~ ~"" ~' ~c .......,.~ _~.~.....~ Gsi ~ `~ f~ ~ t „_..wl }.....,E `,y`~ `,'Qe- ~~ . ~i''i ,~ ~~• / .`_` J' z' o ~ z z y O Z K a % o I b h C Y a / `x ,• ~~ {,>' \ ..1 ~~- r" ~- ~___I , ,.... k~J.. , . ` w •,,., .. .. r / ! l ~~ ~ I ~p~~ ~ s ; ... ... •..tnt ..._. ` ~ E ;t ~ li ~ ~ ~ ~ lrl f j , .~ . !tt s f t f t , 1 ,... ~„ ..:._ .. I . ... . .. ... ,... ., 1 ,.... ~~.J ~~, ~;.~ ~~ .. ~ Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.3- I Roadway Segment Levels Of Service: 1997 No. o f Daily Capacity V/C LOS Lanes Volume Major Arterials Hillside Blvd/Sister Cities Blvd Holly Ave to Dolores Way 4 15,400 40,000 0.39 B Stonegate Dr to S. San Francisco Dr 4 18,300 40,000 0.46 B S. San Francisco Dr to Hillside Blvd 4 15,000 40,000 0.38 B Hillside Blvd to Airport Blvd 4 5,000 40,000 0.13 A Junipero Serra Blvd North of Hickey Blvd 4 22, 100 40,000 0.55 C South of Hickey Blvd 4 13,700 40,000 0.34 B North of Westborough Blvd 4 14,300 40,000 0.36 6 Westborough Blvd/Chestnut Ave East of Skyline Blvd 4 14,300 40,000 0.36 B East of Junipero Serra Blvd 4 33,500 40,000 0.84 E West of W. Orange Ave 4 38,000 40>000 0.95 E South of Commercial Ave 4 15, 100 40,000 0.38 B Between Miller Ave and Sunset Ave 2 13,800 20,000 0.69 D Oyster Point Blvd US 101 to Gateway Blvd 4 23,000 40,000 0.58 C Gateway Blvd to Eccles Ave 2 18,100 20,000 0.9 I E East Grand Ave Gateway Blvd to Forbes Blvd 4 33, 100 40,000 0.83 D East of Forbes Blvd 4 26,700 40,000 0.67 D Forbes Blvd Between Allerton Ave and Gull Rd 4 4,800 40,000 0.12 A Grandview Dr North of E. Grand Ave 2 4,800 20,000 0.24 A 4-49 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.3- I Roadway Segment Levels Of Service: 1997 No. of Lanes Daily Volume Capacity V/C LOS South of Forbes Blvd 2 3,400 20,000 0.17 A Minor Arterials Mission Rd West of Holly Ave 4 9,700 36,000 0.27 A Grand Ave Mission Rd to Chestnut Ave 2 9,700 18,000 0.54 C Orange Ave to Spruce Ave 2 13,300 18,000 0.74 D Hickey Blvd Hilton Ave to Camaritas Ave 4 16,200 36,000 0.45 B Orange Ave N. Canal St to Commercial Ave 2 9,700 18,000 0.54 C Spruce Ave East of EI Camino Real 4 18,200 36,000 0.5 I C Linden Ave N. Canal St to Commercial Ave 2 12,900 18,000 0.68 D Callan Blvd At Greendale Dr 2 6,600 18,000 0.37 B Collectors Greendale Dr Callan Blvd to Gateway Dr 2 2,300 14,000 0.16 A Baden Ave Orange Ave to Spruce Ave 2 3,600 14,000 0.26 A West of Linden Ave 2 13,400 14,000 0.96 E 4-50 Chapter 4: Environmentol Setting, Impoct Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.3- I Roadway Segment Levels Of Service: 1997 No. of Daily Capacity V/C LOS Lanes Volume Commercial Ave Orange Ave to Spruce 2 4,500 14,000 0.32 B Source: Fehr & Peers SamTrans Bus Service Within South San Francisco, SamTrans (San Mateo County Transit District) operates six express routes and ten local bus routes. The local bus routes have an average weekly ridership of approximately 3,220 people. These bus routes serve areas of South San Francisco west of US 101. Areas east of US 101 are not served by fixed bus-route service but by shuttle buses. SamTrans bus routes in South San Francisco will be modified to provide feeder bus service to the new BART station at Hickey Boulevard. This will improve accessibility to the station and help reduce the amount of automobile traffic in the vicinity of the station, but may result in reduced service on local residential routes. The current plan does not include expanding fixed-route service to the East of 101 area. This area will continue to be served by shuttle bus service. Caltrain Service The South San Francisco station is located on the east side of US 101 on Dubuque Avenue, under the East Grand Avenue overpass. Caltrain, operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), has 68 weekday trains between San Francisco and San Jose/Gilroy. Currently, 55 trains serve the South San Francisco Station each weekday. Approximately 1,000 passengers use the station daily. Pedestrian dna bicycce access to the station is difficult due to its location. SamTrans fixed bus route service does not service the station, as the standard busses cannot negotiate the tight curve on the driveway from Dubuque Avenue to the station. Connections between Downtown and the station are poor and there is no direct eastern access to the station, In 1998, the City prepared a concept pla to move the station and the platforms further south, move track sidings, provide shuttle drop-off and direct bus and pedestrian connections Increased train frequency, a new station location, added SamTrans bus service, and an expanded shuttle bus program is expected to increase Caltrain ridership. The current Caltrain system and the proposed BART extension offer excellent opportunities for commuters from outside the city to gain access to South San Francisco. Opportunities for supporting transit services (SamTrans feeder buses and shuttle buses) bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities must be maximized to encourage people to use these rail modes. 4-51 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update BART Extension The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system provides rail service between San Francisco, East Bay locations, Daly City, and Colma. BART will be extended from its current terminus at the Colma Station to the San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae. A station in South San Francisco will be constructed as part of the extension. The South San Francisco Station is located between El Camino Real and Mission Road to the south of the new Hickey Boulevard Extension. With the extension and new station, South San Francisco residents will be able to travel to San Francisco and East Bay communities via rail. The projected 2010 daily ridership at the Hickey Station is 8,000. The future BART extension and station locations, as well as existing Caltrain and SamTrans bus routes, are shown in Figure 4.3-2. 4-52 r I I z i a ~ z A b i b 'Z k1 b > O `1 X b O ~ ' `i ~ I x h O ~- ~ ` ~J > ~~' '~ i ~ A i 0 ~~'~ ~~ ~ i ' A ~ ~~ li ~ ~ ~~ ''~ ~ . i ~ ,. V I i O / I V ~ O i~ I O ~ I(Ir „` ~ I "t ~ IL ` ( 3 ~ ~ I "s~ ~ I ~ ~ 'w ~ ~~ N d N i Chapter 4: Environmental Seating, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update ART System An Airport Rail Transit (ART) System, to move people and luggage between buildings, terminals, major employment locations, and parking areas within San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) is being designed as part of the current SFIA Expansion Plan. The ART system would loop around the main terminal and garage area and extend approximately four miles north along McDonnell Road to the future rental car facility. Phase II will extend from McDonnell Road to South Airport Boulevard (near the United Airlines maintenance facility) and terminate along the North Access Road. Construction of Phase I is expected to start in September 1997. ART-Caltrain Connection In 1996, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) completed a study to determine the feasibility of a light rail transit connection between SFIA and Caltrain. The study evaluated five alternatives, including new Caltrain stations in San Bruno and west of SFIA and a new BART-Caltrain station at Millbrae. The different options were evaluated for ridership projections, cost estimates and environmental impacts. The study found two alternatives to be feasible. The findings of the JPB feasibility study are currently being reviewed by the Airports Commission. They have been asked by the JPB to evaluate the two alternatives from a technical and policy perspective and to contribute funding to the construction of the project. Light Rail Potential in South San Francisco Ridership and costs (capital and operating) are key elements in determining if a light rail system is feasible. An ART extension into South San Francisco would cost $15 to 25 million per mile in construction costs. Therefore, the ridership must be sufficiently high to offset these costs and to justify light rail instead of lower cost alternatives such as bus and shuttle bus. Ridership on an extension of ART into South San Francisco beyond the North Access Road would be dependent on several factors including future employment density levels in South San Francisco, levels of congestion on US 101, and travel demand between SFIA and the city. The Caltrain-ALRS connection alternatives are shown in Figure 4.3-3. 4-55 Notr. For Alternative 5, the ALBS would not run along McDonnell Road between R-6 and the Terminal Loop. Figure 4.3-3 CalTrain-ALRS Connection Alternatives Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Repori for South San Francisco General Plan Update Ferry Service While there is no scheduled ferry service to South San Francisco, potential for a terminal at Oyster Point Marina exists. The recently released Bay Ferry Plan by the Bay Area Council identifies Oyster Point as a site for a potential ferry terminal. Birycle Facilities Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. The are few bicycle facilities within South San Francisco. A linear park is being proposed for the BART extension right-of- way, which would have facilities for both pedestrians and bicycles. In addition, the proposed Bay Trail, which will ring the San Francisco Bay with bicycle paths, will provide bicycle facilities within South San Francisco. Abandoned railroad tracks, located in the East of 101 Area and throughout the city, can be converted to bicycle paths as part of the Rails to Trails program. Figure 4.3-4 depicts the locations of the existing bike lanes and bike paths plus the locations of planned future facilities. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, pedestrian bridges, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. The streets in the Downtown area have sidewalks on both sides and pedestrian signals and crosswalks at the signalized intersections to accommodate pedestrian circulation. Many of the streets in the East of 101 Area do not have sidewalks. Pedestrian facility improvements will improve safety for pedestrians and also encourage the use of alternative modes. Shuttle Bus Service Another alternative transportation mode is the shuttle bus system. There are three shuttle bus routes that serve employees of the East of 101 area, the Gateway/Genentech Shuttle, the Oyster Point Shuttle, and the Utah/Littlefield Shuttle. The service is fixed-route, fixed schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. Currently, the shuttles carry 700 riders per workday. They are free to the riders. The operating costs are borne by public agencies (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). Transportation Demand Management Programs Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are provided by employers to reduce the amount of peak period traffic by encouraging their employees to use modes other than the single-occupant automobile to reach the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. Many major employers in South San Francisco have TDM programs, although the requirements for these programs have been overturned in the state legislature. According to the Multi-CitX Transportation Systems Management Agency (MTSMA) 1998 Employee Transportation Survey, South San Francisco has the most extensive shuttle system and the best-developed TDM ~roerams among the eight other cities in Northern San Mateo County. 4-57 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4-58 O 4 F' :. C ti n ro [? (7 's. E - 3 ~ ~ ~ . C y o ~+ G Ft C• ~ ~ X77 ~ ~ p O r=y fD FJ-~ '" f9 ~ P ~ O (D n ^ I N b+ - + p' r ~+ F+ V~ ~. ~ " ~ b ~ ~ w ~' w -.~•'~• i /~ c~ d ~'.. ~e .~ 1~ -~ ,. ~~ ~~:. 0 m ~ 'z ~ b ~ O ~" X L x b ~ Y n O b T H d 5 C 5 0 0 A 3 N z > y z b x b a , > o y x b O ~ y z ti > C1 t- O ~^ • I~~ ~ ^ -- 1 tU ~! ~ ~~ • 'io r ~o .` '~~ ~ ''\ ~(^\ ~ ~\ \ ~~\ Q ~£ ' . n b z `~ ~ ~ 6 ~ S r ~ /~/7~"/1% .11 ^~ l~-_" `.., ~< c .. ~~ r v'~ 1 l..1 ~~~1 ~~~ ~I \ ~~ ~ \~".~y ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~~ ~ ~ . ~ r ^ I ~ ~j `~ ^ ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ^ ' ~ i , ~ , . . ,. • ~ ~ ^ z n ~ o ~ y O k O ~ `z "> z Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Parking The City's Zoning Ordinance has parking requirements to ensure that adequate numbers of parking spaces are provided on-site for most uses. The Downtown area has a parking district: instead of each property owner providing their own parking, parking is consolidated into thirteen city lots. The lots contain approximately 420 spaces, of which 270 are available for long-term, employee parking. In general, the amount of parking in the Downtown area is sufficient; however, there are a few locations with capacity shortages. The industrial areas of the city experience on-street truck parking. The parked trucks and the loading/unloading activities interfere with vehicular circulation. IMPACTS Thresholds of Signifccance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Cause an increase in traffic beyond established Level of Service (LOS) standards on roadway segments. The San Mateo Congestion Management Program (CMP) establishes LOS standards for Routes of Regional Significance. In South San Francisco, these highways and principal arterials and their corresponding CMP LOS standards (in parentheses) are: - US 101 (E) - I-280 (D) - I-380 (C) - State Route 82: El Camino Real (E) - Bayshore Boulevard (E) CMP standards, initially established in 1991, are based on existing conditions with the goal of preventing future congestion levels from becoming worse than currently anticipated. For the South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR, a significant effect would occur if full implementation of the General Plan causes roadway conditions to increase beyond LOS D or the current LOS, if worse. • Cause a substantial decrease in the level of accessibility within South San Francisco. • Fail to provide adequate sites and facilities for pedestrian and bicycle movement within areas of new development and between existing neighborhoods and areas of new development. 4-61 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Updaie Analysis of Impacts The purpose of the General Plan transportation analysis is to develop policies and to identify major transportation system improvements needed to accommodate the projected growth afforded by the proposed land uses designations. Therefore, the transportation analysis was based on the ability of the transportation system to accommodate daily traffic volumes and travel demand. This level of analysis is sufficient to identify new roadways (and the number of lanes on those roadways), roadway extensions, new interchanges, and new transit service. The land use information is not intended to be specific in its level of detail. Therefore, it is not possible, or even advisable, to conduct the transportation analysis at a greater level of detail such as evaluating peak-hour conditions and intersection operations. More detailed transportation and traffic analyses are conducted at the specific or area plan (such as the El Camino Corridor and East of 101 Area) and individual project level. These analyses take a much more focused view and evaluate peak-hours and intersections and recommend commensurate improvements. Impact 4.3-a Future development could cause an increase in traffic beyond established Level of Service (LOS) standards on roadway segments. The San Mateo Congestion Management Program (CMP) establishes LOS standards for Routes of Regional Significance. In South San Francisco, these highways and principal arterials and their corresponding CMP LOS standards (in parentheses) are: - US 101 (E) - I-280 (D) - I-380 (C) - State Route 82: El Camino Real (E) - Bayshore Boulevard (E) The first step in evaluating the effects of the proposed General Plan land uses is to estimate the amount of added traffic. Applying trip generation rates to the various land use components projected traffic estimates. The trip estimates for approved (but not constructed) developments and additional development allowed under the proposed General Plan land use designations are presented in Table 4.3-2. Approximately 44,500 daily trips are projected to be added to South San Francisco's transportation system as a result of approved developments. Buildout of the General Plan is projected to add approximately another 87,000 daily trips. Business park uses are replacing warehouse/industrial uses as part of the General Plan land use changes. This will change the vehicle mix from truck traffic to automobile traffic. 4-62 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Updote Table 4.3-2 General Plan Traffic Estimates (Daily) Land Use Unit Approved Development Size Trips Added General Plan Development Size Trips Low Density Dwelling Unit 970 6,980 202 1,450 Residential Medium Dwelling Unit 159 940 108 640 Density Residential High Density Dwelling Unit 2 10 1,051 4,890 Residential Downtown Dwelling Unit 0 0 295 1,280 Residential Hotels Room 2,233 14,290 994 6,360 Business Ksf 0 0 2,028 24,340 Commercial Coastal Ksf 0 0 164 I ,720 Commercial Downtown Ksf 0 0 121 2,600 Commercial Office Ksf 914 8,040 2,44 I 21,480 Business Park Ksf 672 5,380 2,869 22,950 Warehouse/Ind Ksf 332 1,790 -3,341 -18,040 ustrial Community Ksf 328 7,050 817 17,570 Commercial Total 44,490 87,240 Source: Fehr & Peers Local Impacts The added trips were assigned to the roadway system to develop street segment roadway projections. The results for the streets within South San Francisco are presented in Table 4.3- 3. 4-63 Chapter 4: Environments! Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.3-3 Local Roadway Segment Analysis (Daily Volumes, Capacities, and V/Gs) Roadway Segment Capacity Existing Added Added Total V/C ' Volume Volume Volume Volume (Approved (General Develop- Plan) ment) Major Arterials Hillside Blvd/Sister Cities Blvd Holly Ave to Dolores Way Stonegate Dr to S. San Francisco Dr S. San Francisco Dr to Hillside Blvd Hillside Blvd to Airport Blvd EI Camino Real South of Hickey Blvd North of Westborough Blvd South of Westborough Blvd Junipero Serra Blvd North of Hickey Blvd South of Hickey Blvd North of Westborough Blvd Westborough Blvd/Chestnut Ave East of Skyline Blvd East of Junipero Serra Blvd West of W. Orange Ave South of Commercial Ave Between Miller Ave and Sunset Ave Oyster Point Blvd US I O I to Gateway Blvd 40,000 15,400 300 400 16, 100 0.40 40,000 18,300 3,700 I ,500 23,500 0.59 40,000 15,000 3,700 I ,500 20,200 0.5 I 40,000 5,000 4,500 3, 100 12,600 0.3 I 40,000 24,700 5, 100 3,300 33, 100 0.83 60,000 33,500 4,900 5,000 43,400 0.72 60,000 45,500 3,200 6,300 55,000 0.83 40,000 22, 100 300 500 22,900 0.57 40,000 13,700 300 900 14,900 0.37 40,000 14,300 300 900 15,500 0.39 40,000 14,300 900 400 15,600 0.39 40,000 33,500 2,500 3,900 39,900 I.00 40,000 38,000 2,500 3,900 44,400 I.II 40,000 15, 100 4,700 I ,800 2 I ,600 0.54 20,000 13,800 4,000 I ,200 19,000 0.95 40,000 23,000 12,500 10,700 46,200 1.16 4-64 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Gateway Blvd to Eccles Ave Easi Grand Ave Gateway Blvd to Forbes Blvd East of Forbes Blvd Forbes Blvd Between Allerton Ave and Gull Rd Grandview Dr North of E. Grand Ave South of Forbes Blvd 40,000 18, 100 4,500 5,900 28,500 0.71 40,000 33,100 1,900 6,300 41,300 1.03 40,000 26,700 2,200 2,000 30,900 0.77 40,000 4,800 5, 100 2,600 12,500 0.3 I 20,000 4,800 5,400 I ,700 I I ,900 0.60 20,000 3,400 4,400 1,500 9,300 0.46 Minor Arterials Mission Rd West of Holly Ave Grand Ave Mission Rd to Chestnut Ave Orange Ave to Spruce Ave Hickey Blvd Hilton Ave to Camaritas Ave Orange Ave N. Canal St to Commercial Ave Spruce Ave East of EI Camino Real South linden Ave N. Canal St to Commercial Ave South of Victory Ave Callan 81vd At Greendale Dr 36,000 9,700 600 I ,200 I I ,500 0.32 18,000 9,700 600 800 I I , 100 0.62 18,000 13,300 I ,800 900 16,000 0.89 36,000 16,200 I ,900 I ,800 19,900 0.55 18,000 9,700 36,000 18,200 18,000 12,900 18,000 9,000 18,000 6,600 4-65 500 700 10,900 0.61 300 4,300 23,800 0.66 0 I ,200 14, 100 0.78 0 3,200 12,200 0.68 400 500 7,500 0.42 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update S. Airport Boulevard Utah to I-380 Ramps Collectors Greendale Dr Callan Blvd to Gateway Dr Baden Ave Orange Ave to Spruce Ave West of South Linden Ave 40,000 22,000 2, 100 800 25,000 0.62 14,000 2,300 200 0 2,500 0.18 14,000 3,600 200 800 4,600 0.33 14,000 13,400 200 800 14,400 1.03 Commercial Ave Orange Ave to Spruce 14,000 4,500 1,800 2,300 8>600 0.61 1 Without considering the street improvements incorporated in the proposed General Plan Source: Fehr & Peers Congested conditions are projected to occur at locations where the volume exceeds 80 percent of the capacity, or where the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) exceeds 0.80. It should be noted that these conditions are based on the existing roadway system remaining as it currently exists, without the street improvements proposed in the General Plan. These locations are: • El Camino Real -North of Hickey and south of Westborough • Westborough Boulevard -Junipero Serra to W. Orange Avenue • Orange Avenue -Miller Avenue to Sunset Avenue • Oyster Point Boulevard - US 101 to Gateway Boulevard • East Grand Avenue -Gateway Boulevard to Forbes Boulevard • Grand Avenue -Orange Avenue to Spruce Avenue • Linden Avenue - N. Canal Street to Commercial Avenue • Baden Avenue -West of Linden Avenue Regional Impacts Impacts to the regional roadway facilities, US 101 and I-280, were evaluated by assessing their projected levels of service. The base traffic projections used in this analysis were obtained 4-66 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plon Update from "San Mateo County Countywide Transportation Plan, Alternatives Report" Second Edition, dated June 1997, prepared by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) in association with the cities of San Mateo County and San Mateo County Transit District. The projected two-way PM peak-hour volumes for the segments in (or closest to) South San Francisco are presented in Table 4.3-4. Table 4.3-4 Regional Roadway Segment Analysis (PM Peak-Hour Volumes, Capacities, and V/Cs) Freeway Segment Capacity Bose Projection SSF General Plan Total Tragic V/C ~/C~ ~ Added Tro~c~ US 101, County Line to 18,400 18,725 I ,500 20,225 I.10 Oyster Point Boulevard (1.02) I-280, Hickey Boulevard to 18,400 13,945 300 14,245 0.77 Westborough Boulevard (0.76) 1 Model includes factors for Caltrain and BART ridership 2 Added traffic projections do not include factors for transit use or TDM programs. Source: Fehr & Peers Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan The following Draft General Plan Transportation Element policies and their related programs would mitigate this potential impact. 4.2-G-1 Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and emerging employment areas such as the East of 101 area. 4.2-G-2 Improve connections between different parts of the city. 4.2-G-3 Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of--way and the BART right-of- way to establish new streets. 4.2-G-7 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements. 4.2-G-8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. 4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that: • There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and • The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. 4.2-I-2 Undertake street improvements identified in figures 4-1 and 4-2(Figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-5 of the DEIR). 4-67 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmentol Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Improvements identified include: • Connection between Hillside Boulevard and El Camino Real near the BART station (see Chapter 3 for policies for pedestrian-oriented nature of the segment near the BART station). • Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue connection. This short connection will relieve pressure off the Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. Signal coordination will help to ensure that EI Camino Real traffic flow is not impeded. • Mission Road extension from Chestnut Avenue to Linden Avenue extension. This will be on the BART right-of--way. The General Plan proposes additional uses for the right-of--way-a bikeway and a linear park as well-a coordinated design strategy and joint efforts by the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments will be needed. • Myrtle Avenue extension to South Linden Avenue. This will run parallel (on the north side) of the former Zellerbach Paper plant. Alignment study will be needed, and some small existing structures may need to be removed. • Maple Avenue extension to Noor Avenue at Huntington Avenue. While this connecrion is short and within the City limits, it may be viable only at the time of redevelopment of the site along Browning Way (designated for high-intensity office development, because it is adjacent to the San Bruno BART Station). This connection should be a condition of redevelopment of sites in the area. • South Linden Avenue extension to Sneath Lane. This would dramatically increase access to Lindenville and enable trucks to get to I-380 without going through Downtown. This connection is also extremely critical to ensure connection between Downtown and the (San Bruno) BART Station. • Railroad Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue, following the general alignment of an abandoned railroad right-of--way. This would be the fast non freeway related connection between the areas east and west of US 101. The street will go under US 101. Either a depressed intersection at Railroad Avenue or an elevated section that goes above the Caltrain tracks would be needed. This will probably be an expensive improvement ($IS-20 million), requiring detailed studies. However, it is expected to accommodate more than 20,000 trips per day and existing structures will not need to be removed. Consideration should be given to providing a bikeway in conjunction with the street design. • Victory Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to South Airport Boulevard. This will need to be undertaken in conjunction with development of the regional commercial facilities designated on the General Plan Diagram. • New interchange at Victory Avenue and US 101. This will provide direct connection between Lindenville and US 101, and be the primary truck ingress/egress point in South San Francisco, obviating the need for trucks to 4-68 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update negotiate Downtown streets. As with Victory Avenue extension, development will need to occur in conjunction with development of regional commercial facilities. The connections proposed in Policies 4.2-G-2 and 4.2-I-2 will help integrate different parts of the city. Connections between areas west and east of US 101 (currently limited to streets that provide freeway access) would also free-up capacity along streets such as Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard that provide access to US 101. Connections are also critical across El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard. These improvements will increase the capacity of the local roadway system. As a result, traffic will be diverted from other, existing roadways. The effect of this diversion on roadway operations is evaluated via reductions in volume-to-capacity ratios, as shown in Table 4.3-5. Table 4.3-5 Effect of Local Roadway System Improvements Roadway Segment Volume Adjustment Resulting V/C EI Camino Real North of Westborough -5,000 0.64 South of Westborough - 10,000 0.75 Westborough Blvd/Chestnut Ave West of W. Orange Ave -5,000 0.99 South of Commercial Ave -8,000 0.34 Between Miller Ave and Sunset Ave -5,000 0.70 Oyster Point Blvd US I O I to Gateway Blvd -5,000 1.03 East Grand Ave Gateway Blvd to Forbes Blvd - 10,000 0.78 East of Forbes Blvd -6,000 0.62 Grand Ave Orange Ave to Spruce Ave -2,000 0.78 Baden Ave West of South Linden Ave -4,000 0.74 Source: Fehr & Peers 4-69 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update 4-70 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.2-I-3 Undertake studies to establish precise alignments for streets in order to identify future right-of--way needs. Locate future arterials and collectors according to the general alignments shown in Figure 4-2(Figure 4.3-5 of the DEIR] 4.2-I-4 Establish priorities for transportation improvements, and prepare an action program to implement identified street improvements. 4.2-I-6 Update the Transportation Element, if so necessary, including list of improvements, upon completion of the East of 101 traffic study. Improvement proposals for the area, including Railroad Avenue extension from Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue and a new interchange at Victory Avenue extension/US 101, are being examined as part of the traffic study. 4.2-I-7 Develop and implement a standard method to evaluate the traffic impacts of individual developments. Currently, the City does not have an adopted LOS calculation method or a traffic analysis procedure. Policy 4.2-I-7 would ensure that impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are identified and that developers pay their fair-share of the transportation system improvement costs. 4.2-I-8 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for improvements required East of 101. 4.2-I-10 Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS standards. 4.2-I-11 Implement, to the extent feasible, circulation system improvements illustrated in figures 4-1 and 4-2 prior to deterioration in levels of service below the stated standard. 4.3-I-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: • Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses for TDM programs identified in the Land Use Element; • Procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses; • Requirements for off-site improvements (such as bus shelters and pedestrian connections) that are directly necessary as a result of development; • Exemptions or reductions in any transportation impact fee that may be established in the future for projects that meet specific trip-reduction goals; and • Reduced parking requirements for projects in proximity to fixed-guideway transit or those with demonstrated measures that would reduce trip generation. 4-73 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.3-I-9 Favor TSM programs that limit vehicle use over those that extend the commute hour. 4.3-I-10 Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and further alternative transportation use by City employees by providing: • A designated commute coordinator/manager; • A carpool/vanpool match program; • Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools at City Hall; • Secure bicycle storage facilities; • On-site shower facilities at City Hall for employees; • A commitment to future shuttle service to BART stations; • Guaranteed ride home program; • Transit subsidies; • On-site transit pass sales; and • Incentives/educational program. 4.4-G-1 Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco. 4.4-I-1 Develop a Downtown multi-modal transit center southeast of the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection, with a relocated Caltrain Station as its hub. 4.4-I-3 Explore the feasibility a shuttle system between the Downtown/multi-modal station and South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations. Explore mechanisms to provide the shuttle service free to riders. 4.4-I-4 Encourage SamTrans to provide bus-service to East of 101. These policies and programs substantially reduce congestion impacts and provide the framework for requiring future circulation system improvements as they are needed to prevent deficient levels of service from being reached. With the street improvements provided in the proposed General Plan, six of the eight street segments that were projected to experience congested conditions (LOS C or worse) would have reduced V/C levels. Thus, congested conditions would not occur at these locations. However, two local roadway segments are projected to exceed their capacities with buildout under the maximum development allowed under the General Plan Update (Table 4.3-5). These include portions of Westborough Boulevard (West of W. Orange Ave) and Oyster Point Boulevard(US 101 to Gateway Blvd). Oyster Point Boulevard will be evaluated in more detail as part of the East of 101 transportation analysis, and improvements will be made as necessary. The impact on local roadways is significant. Policies 4.3-I-8, 4.3-I-9, 4.3-I-10, 4.4-G-1, 4.4-I-1, 4.4-I-3, and 4.4-I-4 aim to reduce the amount of peak period traffic which would aid in mitigating Impact 4.3-1. In addition, policies included in Chapter 2: Land Use and Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas would promote mixed-use and higher intensity land uses in certain locations (i.e. close to the BART stations) 4-74 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update as a means to promote bicycling, walking, and public transit use. These higher densities generally tend to reduce trip generation per unit of building space, reducing reliance on driving and further mitigating traffic impacts. Although the Draft General Plan includes several policies to reduce congestion on US 101 and I-280, the reduction in traffic will not prevent a segment of US 101 from operating at LOS F. This remains a significant impact. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested Local Roadway Segments While the Draft General Plan policies address the overall impacts, several segment-specific policies are required for intersections that would be significantly affected by buildout traffic. As such, it is recommended that two additional policies are added to the General Plan. These are included below. 4.2-I-12 As part of the East of 101 traffic study currently underway, evaluate street improvements or other measures to allevviate projected congestion on Oyster Point Boulevard. The General Plan traffic analysis indicates that Oyster Point Boulevard, from US 101 to Gateway Boulevard, is projected to operate at capacity at buildout. 4.2-I-13 Undertake a study to evaluate the feasibility of additional connections between the Westborough sub-area and the other portions of the City east of I-280. These policies would result in evaluation of methods to alleviate conegstion along the two congested roadway segments. US 101 The 1995 Countywide Transportation Plan indicated that US 101 was operating at LOS D in the City, and is projected to decline to LOS F in 2010. Additional growth under the General Plan would not change the LOS from its projected designation, but would contribute to additional congestion (a change in the V/C from 1.02 to 1.10). However, if the projected through traffic demand (i.e. demand generated by people traveling to and from surrounding cities and counties) are removed and the effects of the proposed General Plan are isolated, operational levels in the the segment of US 101 through the City would not decline to below LOS E. Therefore, declines in the LOS may still be reached even with no additional development in South San Francisco. If operational levels along US 101 decline to below LOS E, the County CMP establishes the C/CAG will notify the jurisdiction(s) responsible for creating the deficienry that a deficienry plan be prepared. While development in South San Francisco will not result in a deficiency to be created, buildout under the Draft General Plan will nonethelss aggravate an existing significant problem. Many South San Francisco residents and employees will be affected by 4-75 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impaci Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update this freeway congestion. Not only will drivers lose time being stuck in traffic, this congestion also creates safety problems. This is considered a significant impact which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Impact 4.3-c The General Plan Update could fail to provide adequate sites and facilities for pedestrian and birycle movement within areas of new development and between existing neighborhoods and areas of new development. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan This potential impact would be mitigated by the following General Plan Transportation Element policies and their related programs. 4.3-G-1 Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 4.3-I-1 Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list or map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. A Bikeways Committee that includes citizens, officials, and staff maybe appointed for the purpose. The Bikeways Master Plan should be consistent with the General Plan; if necessary, the General Plan can be amended at the time of adoption of the Bikeway Master Plan to ensure this consistency. An approved Bikeway Master Plan is needed to be eligible for State and Federal funding programs. 4.3-I-2 As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements identified in Figure 4-3 {Figure 4.3-4 of the DEIR) in the General Plan, and identify additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights-of--way and other potential connections. Improvements identified on Figure 4-3 include: • Bike Path on linear park on the BART right-of--way, extending from the South San Francisco BART station to the San Bruno BART station; • Paths or lanes along proposed Bay Trail, with continuous shoreline access; and • Bike Lane along the proposed Railroad Avenue extension, which would provide the first bikeway connection linking the eastern and western parts of the city and provide shoreline bikeway access from residential neighborhoods west of US 101. 4.3-1-4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses. 4-76 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impoct Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impoct Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.3-I-5 As part of redesign of Linden Avenue (see Section 3.2), provide continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, extending through the entire stretch of the street from San Bruno BART Station to Downtown. 4.3-I-6 As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require project proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development and redevelopment projects. 4.3-I-7 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the surrounding and the rail stations -South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station. Components of the program should include: • Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed. • Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use; • Providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking distances across streets in the Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas; • Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and • Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. The policies and programs included in the proposed General Plan provide the framework for expanding and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle routes, amenities, and connections in the city. These policies reduce Impact 4.3-c to less than significant levels. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. RESIDUAL IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in a significant residual impact since it would cause an increase in traffic beyond established LOS standard on the US 101 roadway segment in the city and on two local roadways (Oyster Point Boulevard and Westborough Avenue). 4-77 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.4 AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for air quality is contained in Chapter 12: Air Quality of the Existing Conditions Report. The following represents a summary and update of the contents of Chapter 12. Types of Air Pollutants Three types of air pollutants affect air quality in South San Francisco: • Criteria air pollutants, • Toxic air contaminants, and • Odors and nuisances. Some criteria air pollutants are more regional in nature, such as ozone, while others are more localized, such as carbon monoxide. Toxic air contaminants and odors and dust are generally more localized in nature. The City's ability to regulate the pollutants directly is preempted by state and regional requirements. The land use planning implications of pollution control varies based on the scale of impact. The Bay Area's air quality is influenced largely by motor vehicle use. Automobile ownership and use are increasing at faster rates than population growth. However, the trend towards a newer, cleaner vehicle mix will serve to counteract some of the negative air quality impact associated with increased vehicle use. Overall, a net reduction in the emissions of ozone precursors and carbon monoxide is expected, while particulate matter emissions are expected to increase into the future. Criteria Air Pollutants The federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection A~encX (U.S. EPA) to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (national standards). The U.S. EPA has established national standards for six criteria air pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM-10), and lead. In addition, under State law, the Air Resources Board has established state ambient air duality standards (State standards) that are generally more stringent than the corresponding national standards. Pollutants for which ambient air quality standards have been established are refereed to as "criteria air pollutants." Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA classifies air basins, or portions thereof, as either "attainment" or "nonattainment" for the national standards. Likewise, an air basin is classified under the California Clean Air Act with respect to the achievement of the state standards. South San Francisco is located within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air 4-78 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Basin (Bay Area). The Bav Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered "nonattainment" for state standards for ozone and PM-10. Figure 4.4-1 shows the California air basins. Under federal and State law, air duality plans are required for regions designated as "nonattainment" for ambient air quality standards (with the exception of the state PM-10 standard . In 1991, the Bav Area `91 Clean Air Plan (1991 Clean Air Plan) was developed to address the nonattainment status of the Bay Area with respect to the state ozone standard. The 1991 Clean Air Plan included more control strategies than the corresponding Ba~Area federal ozone plan since the state ozone standard is more stringent the national ozone standard. The 1991 Clean Air Plan has been updated twice, in 1994 and 1997, with the continued goal of improvin air quali , through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. Criteria air pollutants are regulated by various agencies. The State is responsible for re ulating emissions from mobile sources, such as cars and trucks, and the regional Bay Area Air Ouality Management District (BAAOMD~ is responsible for emissions from industrial facilities and other stationary sources. The primary role of cities in achieving and maintaining regional air quality is through land use decision-making, which can affect vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and through other measures to manage the emission of pollutants. The BAAOMD identifies specific Transportation Control Measures which, together with other approaches, may help reduce emissions in South San Francisco, contributing to regional pollution control efforts. The most recent update of the 1991 Clean Air Plan, the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan, identifies new control measures, two of which depend, in part, upon local agencies to implement. The first of these calls for promotion of energy efficiency and the second calls for promotion of the development and use of high albedo (reflecting) materials for roofing and road surfaces. Air quay in the Bay Area is monitored by the BAAOMD. While no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, BAAOMD samples local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco. Table 14-4 provides afive-year summary of pollutant monitoring data from that station. The data summarized in Table 14-4 shows that air quali in the vicinity of South San Francisco ,performs well against state standards for criteria air pollutants. No violations of the state standard for ozone occurred between 1993 and 1997, although locallygenerated emissions of ozone precursors, i.e., reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), affect downwind areas where violations do occur. With respect to carbon monoxide, again the state standard was not exceeded. However, since 71 percent of the carbon monoxide emitted in the Bay Area comes from on-road motor vehicles, concentrations in the vicinity of congested intersections and highway segments would be expected to be higher than the monitoring data indicates. Ambient PM-10 concentrations do violate the state standard on occasion in the vicinity of South San Francisco. PM-10 in the atmosphere is the result many of dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, construction, fugitive sources (such as roadway dust), and atmospheric photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. 4-79 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.4- I San Francisco Air Pollutant Summary, 1993- 1997, Arkansas Street Monitoring Station Pollutant Standard 2 1993 Monitoring Data by Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 Ozone Highest I-hr. average, ppm ~ 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.07 Number of violations 0 0 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide Highest I-hr. average, ppm 20 7 6 5 5 5 Number of violations 0 0 0 0 0 Highest 8-hr. average, ppm 9.0 5. I 4.5 4.4 3.8 3_5 Number of violations 0 0 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide Highest I-hr. average, ppm 0.25 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 Number of violations 0 0 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide Highest I-hr. average, ppm 0.25 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 Number of violations 0 0 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM-10) Highest 24-hr. average, µg/m3 50 69 93 50 71 81 Violations/Samples 3 5/61 6/61 0/61 2/61 3/61 Annual Geometric Mean, µg/m3 30 25.1 24.7 22.1 21.4 22.5 Lead Highest monthly average3, µg/m3 1.5 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 Number of violations 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ppm =ports per million; ,uglmJ ,= mivograms per cubic meter 2 State standard, not to be exceeded. 3 PM-10 and lead ore usually measured every sixth day (rather than continuously like the other pollutants). For PM-10, "violations/samples" indicates the number of viokroons of the state standard that occurred in a given year and the total number of samples that were taken that year. NOTE: Values shown in bold type exceed the applicable standard. Source: CoCrfomia Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board Colifomia Air Qualrty Dato, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. 4-80 slslurou 2' MODOC 1 North Coast 2 Northeast Plateau 3 Sacramento Valley 4 Mountain Counties 5 Lake Tahoe 6 Great Basin Valleys 7 San Joaquin Valley 8 Mojave Desert 9 San Diego 10 South Coast 1 I South Central Coast 12 North Central Coast 3 San Francisco Bay Area 14 Lake County 15 Salton Sea TwNm RDT SHASTA LASSEN TEHAMA 3 P<~ MENDOGNO GLENN 6llTTE ~_ SIERRA COLUSA y~A ADA LAKE 14 R PULER S~NOMA roles NAPA _. _ \ EL DORADO SAN ~ COSTA JOA.QUIN TUOLUyNE rlusco ~~~ ~ v \ MONO SAN MA STANLSUUS MARIPOSA SANTA CLARA ME0.CED SANTA C0.UZ MADEM SAN INYO MONTEILEY TULARE KINGS 0 50 100 MILES Source: California Air Resources Board, 1996, Proposed Maps ofArea Derignations for the Susie and National Ambient Air Quality Standards SAN LUS ~~~ OBISPO KERN KERN II SANTA 9ARBARA SAN BERNADWO VENTURA LOSANGELES RlveLVDE 15 SAN DIEGO 9 IMPBUAL Figure 4.4-1 California Air Basins Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Toxic Air Contaminants, Odors and Nuisances Toxic air contaminants are those pollutants that are found in urban environments at low concentrations and are associated with adverse human health effects, but which are not the subject of ambient air quality standards. Toxic air contaminants are emitted by a wide range of mobile and stationary sources. Generally, concentrations of toxic air contaminants are similar throughout the Bay Area. BAAQMD regulates toxic air contaminants from stationary sources through their permit process; mobile sources of toxic air contaminants are regulated indirectly through vehicle emissions standards and through fuel specifications. Cities have a role in reducing public exposure to toxic air contaminants through ensuring sufficient buffer zones around stationary sources and by reducing vehicle trips. Odors and nuisances includes those emissions which occur infrequently but which have the potential to generate citizen complaints. Based on a review of BAAQMD records, citizen complaints associated with odors and other similar types of nuisances are neither frequent nor widespread in South San Francisco. Nevertheless, buffering of incompatible uses and control of dust from construction are potential local approaches to controlling odors and nuisances. IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.4-a Land use development under the General Plan Update could result in construction-related air quality impacts. Such impacts can be reduced to less than significant through implementation of standard dust abatement measures. 4-82 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Land use development under the General Plan Update could result in construction-related air quality impacts. Construction activities would generate fugitive dust (including PM-10 but also larger-diameter particulate matter). A large portion of total construction-related fugitive dust would be associated with grading activities and heavy equipment travel over temporary roads at construction sites. Fugitive dust emissions at a given construction site would vary from day to day depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Without implementation of appropriate dust abatement measures, construction activities can generate substantial fugitive dust emissions which, in turn, can lead to nuisance impacts related to soiling, reduced visibility, and elevated PM-10 concentrations. While temporary and intermittent. Construction-related impacts at a given construction site would be significant in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures. However, the General Plan Update calls for the City to require BAAQMD-recommended dust abatement measures as part of the CEQA review process (see Implementing Policy 7.3-I-3 below), and with implementation of that policy, construction activities under the General Plan Update would not be expected to violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 7.3-I-3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. Impact 4.4-b Over the long-term, development under the proposed General Plan Update could lead to emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM-10 largely due to increases in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT). Over the long-term, the General Plan Update would lead to continued land use development in South San Francisco. Such development would affect air quality primarily through increased motor vehicle use and increased energy consumption, which would lead to emissions of carbon monoxide, ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), and PM-10. Table 4.4-2 provides estimates of emissions associated with land use development in South San Francisco under existing conditions (existing uses, 1999) and under the General Plan Update (existing uses and approved development plus additional development anticipated under the General Plan Update, buildout). 4-83 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plon Update Table 4.4-2 Estimated Emissions, 1999-2020 Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) ' Existing (1999) Proposed General Plon Carbon Monoxide 78,900 38,300 Reactive Organic Gases 7,100 3,800 Nitrogen Oxides 9,500 7,600 Particulate Matter (PM- 10) 2,900 3,700 ' Emissions include area and vehicular sources based on general land use categories. Except for wood stove and lreplace use, emissions were estimated using URBEMIS 7G (version 3.1). Carbon monoxide emissions reflect wintertime conditions (50 degrees Fahrenheit) and the other pollutants reflect summertime conditions (75 degrees Fahrenheit). Emissions from wood stove and fireplace use are based on CaGfomia Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Area Source Methodologies, Section 7.1 (July 1997). Source: Environmental Science Associates, 1999. As shown in Table 14-5, emissions under the General Plan Update would be substantially less than those under existing conditions for all of the criteria air pollutants (and precursors), except for PM-10. Generally, the estimated reduction in emissions indicates that, except for PM-10, the increased vehicular activity and energy consumption from new development would be more-than-offset by projected lower exhaust emissions per vehicle mile traveled (VMT) in 2020 compared to 1999. PM-10 emissions would increase in the future relative to existing conditions because entrained road dust, rather than exhaust emissions, is the principal component of PM-10 and such emissions would not be affected by reductions in exhaust emissions, but rather, would be proportional to the increase in VMT. The significance of changes in emissions under a plan, such as those shown in Table 4.4-2, depends upon the overall consistency of that plan with the regional Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (April 1996) provides guidance to lead agencies in evaluating the consistenry of a local plan with the regional Clean Air Plan. Local plans found to be consistent with the regional Clean Air Plan would have a less than significant impact on air quality. To determine that a plan is consistent with the Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD recommends that all of the following criteria be met: • Population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) assumptions of the local plan are consistent with those used in developing the Clean Air Plan; • The local plan implements the Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) identified for implementation by local agencies in the Clean Air Plan; and • The local plan provides for buffer zones to avoid impacts related to odors and toxics. 4-84 Chopter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update The first criterion is evaluated by comparing population projections of the local plan with those used for the regional Clean Air Plan and by determining whether the rate of increase in VMT would exceed the rate of increase in population. Under the proposed General Plan Update, the population of South San Francisco is expected to increase from approximately 59,200 under existing conditions to approximately 67,400 by 2020. The current Clean Air Plan, the 1997 Clean Air Plan, is based on population projections contained in Projections `96, which was published by the Association of Bay Area Governments in December 1995. Projections '96 includes projections only through year 2015, but extrapolating from the 2015 values provides the basis for an estimated population of South San Francisco in 2020 of approximately 66,400, which is essentially the same as that anticipated under the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, the population assumptions of the proposed General Plan update are consistent with those used for the regional Clean Air Plan. As adjusted to reflect data compiled in Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Travel Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area 1990-2020 Trip Generation and Trip Distribution (August 1998), the model used to calculate the vehicular emissions that are included in Table 4.4-2 (URBEMIS 7G) also provides the basis for estimating the vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) for City-wide development. Daily VMT is expected to increase from approximately 2.3 million under existing conditions to approximately 3.1 million in 2020 under the proposed General Plan Update, an approximate 37 percent increase. Since the rate of increase in VMT (37 percent from 1999 to 2020) would exceed the rate of increase in population (14 percent from 1999 to 2020), the proposed General Plan Update would not be consistent with the regional Clean Air Plan. This would be a significant adverse effect of the project. The regional Clean Air Plan identifies certain TCMs for implementation by local agencies. These include assistance to regional and local ridesharing organizations, improvement of bicycle access and facilities, improvement of arterial traffic management, expansion of transit use incentives, and incorporation of air quality beneficial policies and programs into local planning and development activities. As discussed below in the Mitigation section, the proposed General Plan Update includes implementation of the applicable TCMs (see Guiding Policy 7-3-G-2). The third criterion calls for local plans to include appropriate buffer zones around existing and proposed land uses that would emit odors or toxic air contaminants. Again, as discussed below in the Mitigation section, the proposed General Plan Update includes appropriate policies designed to avoid impacts related to odors and toxics (see Guiding Policy 7.3-G-3). With implementation of Guiding Policy 7.3-G-3, the project would avoid exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or to substantial odor sources. In sum, while the proposed General Plan Update would be consistent with many aspects of the regional Clean Air Plan, including population assumptions and TCMs, it would be inconsistent with the transportation performance standard that links the rate of increase in VMT with the rate of increase in population. As such, the proposed General Plan Update would obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This would be a significant unavoidable adverse effect of the project. 4-85 Chapter 4: Environmeniol Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Droft Environmental lmpact Report for South San Froncisco Generol Plan Update Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 7.3-G-1 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. 7.3-G-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit and carpooling. 4.1-G-5 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. In addition, the Transportation Element includes policies for bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and Transportation Demand Management designed to reduce emissions and alleviate traffic congestion. Specific policies in the Transportation Element include 4.3-G-3, 4.3-G-4, 4.3-I-8, 4.3-I-9, 4.3-I-10, 4.4-G-1, and 4.4-I-3. The Land Use Element includes policies that encourage pedestrian and transit travel between home and work, reducing negative air quality impacts. 7.3-G-3 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. Development of sensitive receptors in close proximity to the South San Francisco San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant and other potential emissions sources is restricted by land use policies in Chapter 2: Land Use. Residential uses, as well as most other types of sensitive receptors except hotels, are not permitted East of 101. 7.3-I-1 Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes. 7.3-I-2 Use the City's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. 7.3-I-4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean- burning fireplaces and wood stoves. 7.3-I-5 In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new tress and maintaining existing ones. 4-86 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update RESIDUAL IMPACTS Implementation of the policies of the proposed General Plan Update and the additional policies identified in this report would reduce the criteria air pollutants associated with the rate of increase in City-wide VMT but not to the extent that the impact would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the inconsistency of the project with the regional Clean Air Plan would be a significant unavoidable effect. 4-87 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmentol Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.5 NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for noise is contained in Chapter 13: Noise of the Existing Conditions Report. Noise Generation South San Francisco is highly susceptible to noise impacts in almost all parts of the city, owing to the presence of major noise generators such as San Francisco International Airport (SETA), US 101, Interstate 280, and extensive industrial uses. While noise events of short duration can be measured, noise levels are often reported as an average level over a period of time, weighted to reflect different perceptions of daytime and nighttime noise. This reporting technique means that noise from high impact individual events, such as aircraft flyovers, are averaged into much lower overall noise levels. Therefore, in some cases, noise contour maps may not adequately reflect perceived noise levels. Aircraft Noise South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a large portion of departures from SFIA, particularly large, heavy aircraft climbing slowly over the coast range for Pacific Rim destinations. Aircraft flyovers comprise South San Francisco's major noise source. The San Francisco International Airport Flight Paths are shown in Figure 4.5-1. Aircraft noise is continually decreasing as older, louder Stage 2 aircraft are replaced with Stage 3 aircraft. Regulations governing the schedule of Stage 2 phaseouts support this transition. Airport expansion through 2006 is established in the 1989 SFIA Master Plan, which calls for construction of a new international terminal, modification of parking and circulation in the airport complex, and development of additional maintenance and support facilities. The expansion will enable additional increases in flight activity above those that could occur with the airport's current capacity. Projected increases are shown in Table 4.5-1. The projected decrease in the impacted population between 1990 and 2006 stems from the smaller 65 dB CNEL contour that will result from the elimination of Stage 2 aircraft. However, much of this noise reduction has already occurred; overall noise levels are projected to increase by 0.5 dB between 1996 and 2006, with nighttime noise levels expected to increase by 1.2 dB due to increased operations. These increases are not considered perceptible or significant. 4-88 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.5- I Aircraft Noise Projections, 1990-2006 1990 2006 % change Annual aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) 427,475 538,464 26 Average daily operations 833 1,029 36 Impacted population' 14,980 6,600 (56) Population exposed to noise level of 65 dB CNEL or greater. Source: Environmental Science Associates, SFIA Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (1989) The 1995 SFIA Airport Land Use Plan, prepared by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), identifies standards for different types of development in areas impacted by aircraft noise. These standards have been adopted by the City of South San Francisco and are shown in Table 4.5-2. 4-89 ,-- 9 % ~' t 2% ~~ 16% Mau Bach -- Flight Corridor Arrows are representative of flight comdors that are up to several miles wide and encompass a greater area than shown by these lines and arrows. Actual aircraft are more widely dispersed than shown. Percentages shown represent average annual use of the tracks by departing air carrier aircraft (except B747's) during the daytime. Actual use of a track on a particular day depends on what runways are being used. * Used by fewer than 1% of departing aircraft. Source: San Francesco International Airport Master Plan Drafr EIR Walnut ___--~ _, `\ 0 4 8 MILES Figure 4.5-1 San Francisco International Airport Flight Paths CONTRA Monga C O $ TA Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.5-2 Land Use Criteria for Noise-impacted Areas Land Use CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria Residential Less than 65 Satisfactory; no special insulation requiremenu 65 to 70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requiremenu and noise insulation as needed over 70 Development should not be undertaken Commercial less than 70 Satisfattory; no special insulation requirements 70 to 80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requiremenu and noise insulation as needed over 80 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided Industrial less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requiremenu 75 to 85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requiremenu and noise insulation as needed over 85 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided Open Space less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requiremenu over 75 Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, SFIA Airport Land Use Plan (1989) Consistent with noise restrictions in the California Administrative Code, Title 21, Subchapter 6, "Noise Standards,"' the Land Use Plan establishes the 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFIA, based on 1983 FAA-approved Noise Exposure Map (NEM). Local plans, policy actions, or development activities that affect areas within that boundary must receive ALUC approval or have a finding of overriding considerations prior to local permit issuance. Lx ~~. a: _. ~,-,. ,.~~~:,..,f• rat. _.,._,:.._~.......~.,. _,.:..,. ~ e 4irr i i ~ c e'i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ iff e i T ~ ~ rc ext in rearxvirvr -[irc3c o~uaaueu uu ew c~eria: ALUC is now completing an updated land use plan for the airport, which is expected in e~mid-1999. The updated plan will be based on the 1995 NEM that was approved by the FAA The 1995 noise contours-65 dB and 70 dB-are shown in Figure 4.5-1. Large portions of the city fall within the 65 dB contour the 70 dB contour impacts a small portion of the city's eastern industrial area near the San Bruno border. ` San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan p. II-4. 4-91 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update The City has joined other San Mateo County jurisdictions in a Memorandum of Understanding with SFIA for aircraft noise mitigation efforts, to be funded by SFIA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Development in noise-impacted areas is further regulated by the Agreement for Aircraft Noise Mitigation between the City and SFIA, which establishes South San Francisco's grant application responsibilities and prohibits development of noise sensitive uses east of US 101. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the City operates its Aircraft Noise Insulation Program. The City uses its funds from SFIA to retrofit residences built before 1983 to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB CNEL. As funding diminishes and the 2000 expiration date for the Memorandum approaches, the City will need to identify alternative funding sources for noise mitigation activities. Locally-generated noise Traffic noise along freeways and major streets-shown on Figure 4.5-2-is particularly high in South San Francisco due to the proportion of truck traffic travelling to, from and through the city. Traffic noise depends primarily on speed and the proportion of truck traffic: changes in traffic volumes have a smaller impact on overall traffic noise levels. For example a doubling of traffic volumes results in a 3 to 5 dB increase in noise levels. Railroad noise from Caltrain and freight trains using the Southern Pacific rail line is currently not a primary noise source, owing to the location of the railroad adjacent to the freeway and industrial areas. Caltrain ridership is expected to increase through 2010, but it is unknown whether train service will be increased. Even an increase in service would be unlikely to change overall noise levels in the proximity of US 101, a much larger generator of noise. The BART extension-currently under construction-will run underground between the South San Francisco station at the northwestern edge of the city and the San Bruno station at the Tanforan Park showing center. While the BART extension is not expected to have significant airborne noise impacts, it may result in fairly extensive ground-borne noise or vibration impacts. These impacts will be mitigated by BART as part of the extension design. 4-92 ~ ~ °c ~ • • `°• ~ • ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~y N N ~ w ~ O ~ O ~ n ry C O~ W O lI~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ n O O O b Q. 5 ~ o ~ `~ a a ~* ~,' ~ z v b :; '~ ~ a o b b ~ o w o a. a. w ~ ~ z z r o 0 0 0 a ~ c ~ ~' ~' 'o a c o ~ ., 5• 0 0 N o. o 0 w ~ ~• ~ 0 0 c o 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ n d~ ~~ x ~• ~o ~' ., c o~ a ~~~~ o ~~ ~~. ~` \V ' • ~ ,o \~ \! ~- ~ .~ 0 _.., - .. o~ •' , N ~~ - ,~ ~ o~ o~ • V O I ~' ' I : ~ - ' ~- ~\l~ i ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ' ~~~~ ~. ,• .. •;, ~ -- I ©o O G n 'n f ~„ ~ ~ ^, O~ O Gy ~ T In C7 z r V O W ~ V Vl Gd ~ ~ ~O `~ o y. r r r ~ p ~, ~~ o o ~ ti _ H H ~_ fD (D iJ. O b w ~n w '[ I _ ~1 f•_l 'dYll 7,~F'UH.1{ J ,. ~. ..~ ~ f t1. ,. 4 ~ '~Rq f {f. t ~ ~ a ~ ~~,; ~ f. t..` J a z..., ' t ~ ., •:t s!~ ~ ~ I.~ r 14l 3 ~" ~ r~., , ~ ~ ~ t ~ , ' { ( ~ ~ 1 `\ \ ~' 0 G n ~o m ~. .. y r w~ h O vii O cVii ,` L` ~ n n C o' r r r r ; + a 1`w; ' S + ~ ~' ~„ \, 0 b n, ~ ,T ~~:' ~;, ~., o •, .~.,. ,,,• , ~• , ,,; ~ . ~ ,~ . ~! , ~,~ .~ ,, ,: r 1 n d ' $ ~ ' I ~ , ^~ r.+ r ' r ! ~ ~ ~' ''C , ,: i Y ~ ~~~~ ~: ~ . ~ rj ~ / ~ ~ $ ~: ~ r ~ p ~+ ~ ~ ,, .- . y-a ~ \ . O~ y ~ >o~JO `0 / ~N % Q ti ~, )0 wP '. coo ~ l~ \ , .; Job 1 ., . C`~ Q'•r, ; ~~ ,~, _ ati '. /S 9~ ~ Qa b ° ; ~ ~ w ~ /; Q~ i ~~ ~ 1 ~ ` .~.10 a ~ ::, i 7 ~ ~~~ `,~ 0 tT' S"- 1~7~~/~ )O oVJ /~ ~l ,~ h'i//oK, , ~ Ave ` ~%~~ ~'S - ,~ ';r: F ~. n m a O ~.. a c Z~ Q ~ y~ ~ ~ -p . ' L..~ ~ / /~ w z ''1 o r~ ~ .. l ~ z' „~ o ~ ~ o ~. p ao, \ ~,~ ~_: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Ave o a ~ ~' \ `\ L, ~ \ ~ ~ _! (, ~ ,A ~., ~'~n 9,. ~ ,, ;. ti p~ ~ ~', ~' - ~1 ~ , ~~ ~ ' o ~ _ ~ , C - ~~ 1 ,. '~ ~'~, ~ '~ ' ~ ' ~ 1 i ; ~ t~~ ~ I I Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Droft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Exposure of existing noise-sensitive uses to exterior noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or more (as defined by current 65 dB CNEL contours), regardless of the source. Noise- sensitive uses include residential and public uses, such as schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and auditoriums. • Future development of noise-sensitive uses within current or projected 65 dB OCNEL contours, regardless of the source. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.5-a The project could result in the development of noise-sensitive uses within areas subject to 65 dB CNEL noise levels from roadways and railroads. The General Plan Update would result in infill residential development of 2,780 housing units. No new noise-sensitive public or institutional uses, such as schools or libraries, are proposed. Infill residential development would occur in several areas throughout the city, as the result of several new policies and proposals, including: • New Residential Sites. Several sites designated for non-residential uses on the current Land Use Diagram are proposed for residential use. In particular, several sites adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station, north of Downtown, and in the Lindenville area are designated. . • Increased Maximum Density in Medium Density Residential Areas. In the current General Plan, the Medium Density Residential district is allowed a maximum of 15 units per net acre. The allowable density is increased to 18 units per net acre in the proposed plan. • Increased Maximum Densities in Downtown. The newly proposed Downtown Residential districts would effectively increase allowable densities throughout much of the Downtown area. • Increased Maximum Densities on Other Select Sites. Designations for several other sites throughout the city have been changed from Low Density to Medium or High Density Residential, or from Medium Density to High Density Residential. No new areas of residential development fall within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for SFIA. As shown on Figure 4.5-3, some of these sites are located in areas subject to noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or greater from roadways. These sites include: 4-99 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update • Eastern Edge of Downtown. Downtown High Density Residential areas generally east of Maple Avenue fall within the 65 dB CNEL contour of US 101 and the Southern Pacific (SP) railroad tracks. • Lindenville Residential Area. Several sites located between Railroad Avenue and North Canal Avenue in the Lindenville area are proposed for residential development, including one large site for loft-style residences. The eastern edge of loft-style development area would fall within the 65 dB CNEL contour of US 101 and the SP tracks. (TO BE CONFIRMED: residential development near the intersection of Spruce Avenue and North Canal Avenue would potentially fall within the 65 dB CNEL contour of Spruce Avenue itself.] • Residential Areas Along El Camino Real. Proposed residential sites along El Camino Real would be subject to traffic noise from El Camino. Most sites fall within the 65 dB CNEL contour. The source of noise on all these sites is the adjacent roadway or railroad - US 101, El Camino Real, and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. No sites fall within the FAA-approved 65 dB CNEL contours on the 1995 or Projected 2000 Noise Exposure Maps. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The General Plan update includes policies that mitigate impacts on noise-sensitive uses, as follows: 9-G-1 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. 9-I-4 Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. 9-I-5 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL obtain the service of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. 9-I-6 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. These policies require that new noise-sensitive development falling within 65 dB CNEL contours incorporate insulation, buffering, and other mitigation measures to maintain interior noise levels at 45 dB CNEL or less. This would help create healthy, livable interior environments in new residential development adjacent to heavily trafficked roadways. Maintenance of interior noise levels at 45 dB CNEL or less would reduce the noise impacts on new noise-sensitive development to a less than significant level. 4 - 100 ro d =,; ~' ' d ~ ; ~' ~'~ ;' .~ o sk'? m ~~ 2~ ' ~ s~ ~ ;. ` ~.\ ..`. ~~~v ~~( ~'~ ~• ;,. ',.. ~;;; . ~ Chapter 4: Environmental Setiing, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures would be required. Mitigation measures in the General Plan are adequate to reduce noise levels to a less than significant level. Impact 4.5-b The project could potentially result in the development of noise-sensitive uses within areas subject to single-event flyover noise in excess of 65 dB. As discussed under Impact 4.5-a, new noise-sensitive uses resulting from the proposed project would not be developed within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours from SFIA. Moreover, noise contours from SFIA are expected to shrink, due to the replacement of Stage 2 aircraft with newer, quieter Stage 3 aircraft. Therefore, not only will new noise-sensitive development be located outside 65 dB CNEL contours, but some areas currently within the 1995 contour will be located outside the projected 2000 contour, experiencing an overall decrease in CNEL noise levels. As CNEL noise levels decrease, areas subject to single-event flyover noise would also be expected to decrease. CNEL measurements are partly based on single-event flyover noise. They report average noise levels over the course of a day and are weighted to reflect different perceptions of daytime and nighttime noise. Higher single-event flyover noises generate higher 65 dB CNEL noise levels. As contours shrink (due to the shift to Stage 3 aircraft), areas subjected to single-event fly-over noise would also be expected to decrease in size. Nevertheless, areas of new noise-sensitive development under the General Plan update would still potentially be subject to excessive single-event flyover noise: • Extent of Area Subject to Single-Event Flyover Noise. Areas impacted by single-event noise have not been clearly identified, but they include areas beyond the 65 dB CNEL contours. Single-event flyover noise needs to be substantially higher than 65 dB in order to create 65 dB CNEL noise levels. Areas proposed for new noise-sensitive development may already be subject to noise from single-event flyovers, and they may continue to be affected even after the CNEL noise contours shrink. • Increased Number of Flights. In areas already subject to single-event flyovers, the increased number of flights per day at SFIA will increase the number of times per day that noise-sensitive uses would be subject to flyover noise. In summary, it is not exactly clear how the various changes at SFIA will collectively impact noise levels in South San Francisco. On the one hand, Stage 2 aircraft will decrease areas subject to excessive CNEL and single-event noise levels. On the other hand, large areas of the city beyond the 65 CNEL contours (current or projected) may continue to experience single- event flyover noise, which will increase in number with increased flights. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The General Plan update includes policies that mitigate the impacts of single-event flyover noise on noise-sensitive uses, as follows: 4 - 103 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 9-I-1 Work to adopt apass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. 9-I-2 Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls. These policies are intended to account for the impacts of single-event flyover noise on areas outside the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours. Policy 9-I-1 calls for a standard based on single-event flyover noise. However, since areas impacted by single-event flyover noise have not been clearly identified, Policy 9-I-2 calls for lowering the threshold for aircraft-related noise insulation requirements as an alternative strategy. If areas within the 60 dB CNEL contour were required to have insulation-in addition to areas within the 65 dB CNEL-then most if not all areas subject to single-event flyover noise of 65 dB would likely be covered. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures would be required. Adoption of supplemental insulation standards for new development would help reduce the potential impacts of single-event flyover noise on residential development along the El Camino corridor and in the Lindenville area, which would be made possible as the result of the General Plan Update. Impact 4.5-c The project could result in decreased industrial acreage in the city, causing an overall decrease in truck traffic and truck-related noise levels (beneficial impact). In the current General Plan, large areas are designated for Planned Industrial and Limited Industrial uses, including nearly the entire area east of 101, the area between Railroad Avenue and North Canal Avenue, and the entire Lindenville area. Under the proposed project, some of these areas would be converted to non-industrial use designations, including: • The East of 101 Business and Technology Park; • Business Commercial areas north of Oyster Point Boulevard; • Other Business Commercials along US 101; • Regional Commercial site in Lindenville, west of US 101; • Areas slated for residential and loft-style residences between Railroad Avenue and North Canal Avenue; and • Business Commercial and Office sites in Lindenville, north of the San Bruno city limits and east of the Southern Pacific right-of--way. As a result of conversions from industrial to non-industrial use designations, some of the city's existing industrial and warehousing uses would be replaced by general office, high- technology, hotel, and commercial retail uses. In total, industrial and warehousing uses would be reduced by approximately 3.0 million square feet from existing levels. 4 - 104 Chapter 4: Environmental Seating, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Since industrial and warehousing uses are typically associated with more truck traffic than office, high-tech, hotel, or retail uses, truck traffic and truck-related noise would be expected to decrease. Thus, the proposed project would be expected to have a beneficial impact on truck-related noise. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required or proposed, because the impact would be beneficial. Impact 4.5-d The proposed project could result in the extension of Mission Road from Chestnut Avenue to Maple Avenue, potentially causing roadway noise impacts on residential areas in the Orange Park neighborhood that are currently free of traffic noise. Several street extensions are proposed under the General Plan update, including: • Mission Road, from Chestnut Avenue to Maple Avenue; • Myrtle Avenue, from South Spruce Avenue to South Linden Avenue; • South Linden Avenue, from to the Myrtle Avenue extension to Huntington Avenue (at the Sneath Lane intersection); • South Maple Avenue, from Browning Way to Noor Avenue; • Victory Avenue, from Linden Avenue to the Produce Avenue extension; • Railroad Avenue, from US 101 to East Grand Avenue; and • Produce Avenue, from Terminal Court to Shaw Road. Most of these extensions are located in industrial areas in Lindenville and East of 101. They are intended to break up large industrial parcels to improve mobility and accessibility across the city and to facilitate development and redevelopment in industrial areas. For example, the southern part of the Lindenville area has the greatest number of proposed street extensions, to accompany the conversion from industrial to office and commercial uses. Land uses flanking most extensions would consist of mixed commercial and industrial uses, which are not particularly noise sensitive. Noise levels of 65 dB CNEL along the road extensions would not constitute a significant impact on such land uses. Most commercial uses can typically withstand noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL, and industrial uses can typically withstand noise levels up to 75 dB CNEL, without special noise insulation. Only the Mission Road extension would have significant impacts upon adjacent land uses. This road extension would run along the existing Southern Pacific right-of--way, over the underground BART line that is currently under construction. There are existing residential neighborhoods on either side of the right-of--way, and traffic noise from the new arterial would increase noise levels in excess of 65 dB for residences adjacent to the right-of--way. South San Francisco High School, located between El Camino Real and the right-of--way 4 - 105 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update would also be impacted by the new noise levels. No new noise-sensitive uses are proposed along the Mission Road extension in the General Plan update. The new BART line would be expected to generate low overall noise levels along the Mission Road extension, since the line will be underground. Noise levels from traffic would be expected to be much larger and would have a much greater impact on adjacent land uses. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The General Plan update includes policies that mitigate the impacts of roadway noise from new road extensions, as follows: 9-G-1 Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses. 9-I-4 Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. 9-I-5 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL obtain the service of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. 9-I-6 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. These policies would help reduce the impacts of CNEL noise levels on residential and public uses along the Mission Road extension. Buffering, site design, and other measures would be used to achieve standards for interior noise levels of 45 dB CNEL. Although visible sound walls are not preferred (Policy 9-I-6), they can potentially be used to protect the noise- sensitive uses. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures would be required. Adoption of policies in the General Plan Update would mitigate the noise impacts of the Mission Road extension to a less than significant level. 4 - 106 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update RESIDUAL IMPACTS Full implementation of the General Plan Update would mitigate significant impacts relating to noise. Impacts upon noise-sensitive uses would be a less than significant level. 4 - 107 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update 4.6 WATER,. WASTEWATER, AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for water, wastewater, and solid waste facilities is contained in Chapter 6: Public Facilities and Services of the Existing Conditions Report. Water, Sewer, and Waste Collection Water, sewer, and waste collection systems as they currently exist or as planned will be able to accommodate considerable future growth in South San Francisco. The most important infrastructure improvement that is currently underway is the expansion of the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant to its maximum allowable capacity of 13 million gallons per day (MGD). In addition, the Scavenger Company Materials Recovery Facility/ Transfer Station (MRF/TS), which was approved in April 1999 will be constructed in the East of 101 area. The facility will be constructed on a currently vacant site located on the shore of San Francisco Bay, iust south of Point San Bruno and just east of the mouth of Colma Creek. South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula District (CWSC) serves the portion of the city east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San Francisco's area. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The Company's current contract with the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) entitles CWSC to 42.3 MGD per year. An additional 1.4 MGD can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough County Water District serves the area west of Interstate 280. The CWSC bases its future water use projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The five-year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 millions gallons per day to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand. Water use and wastewater generation are closely connected, particularly for industrial operations. South San Francisco's industries use large quantities of water, particularly for biotechnology-related manufacturing. The high industrial water use levels in turn result in high levels of wastewater generation. The expansion of the sewage treatment plant will accommodate the projected wastewater levels of future development. Table 4.6-1 contrasts current and projected wet and dry weather flows. 4 - 108 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.6- I Average Wastewater Flows, 1998-Buildout Year Average Flow (MGD) 1998 10.7' Flow from Approved and Additional Development 2.42 Buildout Flow 13. I I Figures include sewage flow from the entire wastewater treatment plant system, including South San Francisco, San Bruno, Colma, and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. 2 Based on overage generation rates for housing uniu and non-residential floor space in 7a61e 3.4-1. Source: South Son FranciscolSan Bruno Water Quality Plant Staff; Dyett & Bhatia At buildout, the average flow is expected to reach 13.1 MGD, from South San Francisco's contribution alone. The approved and additional development is projected to generate approximately 2.4 MGD of wastewater. The addition of Biotech companies who generate large amounts of wastewater, could result in higher flows. The treatment plant is currently undergoing expansion to an operational capacity of 13 MGD in order to meet these projected flows. The first phase of the expansion began in early 1998 and should be completed by the end of 2001. The expansion will add three new primary clarifiers, an additional secondary clarifiers, andwill remove_ obsolete. equipment.. The. 47 million dollar proiect is financed through state revolving fund loans. Disposal and treatment of solid and hazardous waste is overseen by San Mateo County. Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processes at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station (MRF/TS). Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, located along State Route 92 between Half Moon Bay and the City of San Mateo. Browning- Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon will be expanded further or Apanolio canyon will be opened for fill. The new Scavenger MRF/TS will be permitted to receive a daily maximum of 1,250 tonnes per day of wastes and recyclable materials. This facility will give the Scavenger Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducin~_the amount of waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge. The Blue Line Transfer Station has a recycling center for newspaper, cardboard, glass, mattresses, and waste oil. The City of South San Francisco coordinates recycling of newspaper, aluminum, glass, and waste oil. Impacts 4 - 109 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih Son Francisco General Plon Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Water demands that exceed available supply or distribution capacity. • Substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources. • Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. • Contaminate a public water supply. • Wastewater flows that exceed collection and treatment capacity. • Solid waste levels that exceed available disposal capacity. Impact 4.6-a Development may increase the demand for public water and exceed available supply or distribution capacity. New development and intensification allowed under the Draft General Plan will result in an increased demand for public water. Water demand projections for the city by the California Water Service Company for the year 2020 range from 5.9 millions gallons per day to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand. Draft General Plan policies and implementation programs provide the framework for the continued provision of an adequate supply of high quality water to existing and proposed development within the city. These policies and programs reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The proposed General Plan provides policies related to water supply as follows: 5.3-G-1 Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water supply system to meet projected needs. 5.3-I-1 Work with California Water Service Company and Westborough County Water District to ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. Policies 5.3-G-1 and 5.3-I-1 confirm the City's commitment to achieving orderly growth by encouraging the City's water suppliers to complete improvements to meet the needs of new development. 5.3-G-2 Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed development. 4- 110 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmenial Impact Report for South San francisco General Plan Update 5.3-I-2 Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. In addition, policies 5.3-G-2 and 5.3-I-2 emphasize the need for water conservation. Water conservation guidelines and standards can be established at two levels: 1) As part of the City's functional plans relating to water supply; and 2) Requiring the use of water-conserving devices as part of project approvals. 5.3-G-3 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing water service to new development. 5.3-I-3 Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing water service to new development in South San Francisco. Policies 5.3-G-3 and 5.3-I-3 would allow the City to require necessary improvements to the water system, or financing thereof; either improvements would be attributed and paid for by an individual developer, or an arrangement would be made to establish fair share agreements when more than one party is involved. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies 5.3-G-1, 5.3-G-2, 5.3-G-3, 5.3-I-1, 5.3- I-2, and 5.3-I-3 would result in less than significant impacts to the existing water supply and distribution facilities. While no mitigation is required, the Draft General Plan policies and programs listed under Impact No. 4.6-a will further reduce this impact. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional measures are required since this is not deemed a potentially significant impact. Impact 4.6-b New development may substantially degrade or deplete groundwater quality. The quality of groundwater is considered good with the exception of industrial areas or locations with underground storage tanks where high levels of nitrate and manganese have been detected. Many hazardous waste sites have been identified through a search of the official Cal/EPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) which was published in December 1994. The Cortese list included 114 known sites with leaking USTs in the city (Table 10-3 of Section 10-2: Hazardous Materials in the Existing Conditions Report).Groundwater is not a significant source of water to the city. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The following general plan policies are applicable to groundwater management: 7.2-G-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. 4-III Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 7.2-I-1 Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality. Policies 7.2-G-1 and 7.2-I-1 direct the City to continued participation in regional groundwater evaluation, planning, and protection through the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. 8.3-G-2 Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous substances as established by federal (EPA), state (DTSC, RWQCB, Cat OSHA, Cal EPA), and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations. 8.3-I-3 Prepare a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage for the sites included in the Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. Policies 8.3-I-3 and 8.3-G-2 would minimize the risk of future groundwater contamination and encourage remediation of contaminated hazardous waster sites. As most contaminated and affected sites are situated in the city's key redevelopment and industrial areas (Gateway, Shearwater, and Downtown/Central), it is important for the City to quantify the levels of constraint and opportunity, and prepare an areawide remediation plan. Potential impacts with respect to groundwater degradation would be less than significant. South San Francisco's primary water supplier obtains only three percent of its total water supply from eight groundwater wells in the city. Additional development would not add new wells in the city nor lead to increases in the amount of groundwater obtained from existing wells. Thus, the proposed general plan would have a less than significant impact on groundwater depletion. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional measures are required since this is not deemed a potentially significant impact. Impact 4.6-c New development may interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Groundwater recharge is necessazy to offset withdrawals and to maintain balance within the shallow groundwater aquifer system. Rainfall and runoff infiltrate the ground surface and percolate down to the water table, recharging the groundwater supply. Typically, as development occurs, natural, porous surfaces aze paved and compacted, thereby increasing runoff and decreasing groundwater rechazge. The degree of paving and compaction varies substantially with the type of land use. For example, single-family residential development typically results in 40 percent impervious surface relative to lot size, while industrial uses such as manufacturing and warehousing can result in impervious surfaces over 90 percent or more of the development area. 4-112 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update Since implementation of the proposed General Plan would result primarily in redevelopment and intensification of industrial and commercial uses and relatively little development on sites that are currently vacant, this impact will be at a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan As indicated in the Existing Conditions Report, the city contains lowland areas of alluvium soils in the East of 101 area that are conductive to groundwater recharge. Policies 7.2-G-1 and 7.2-I-1 listed under impact 4.6-b would ensure groundwater recharge through continued participation in regional groundwater and stormwater management programs of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Although it is not possible to predict the acreage of impervious surfaces that would result from General Plan buildout, growth in accordance with the Plan would result in some loss of groundwater recharge areas due to building and construction. However, growth is proposed to consist largely of intensification and redevelopment, which would not result in a substantial loss of recharge areas. Potential impacts with respect to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. While no mitigation is required, the Draft General Plan policies and programs listed under Impact No. 4.6-a will further reduce this impact. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional measures are required since this is not deemed a potentially significant impact. Impact 4.6-d Future development may result in contamination of public water supplies. The city's primary water source, the San Francisco Water Department, does not obtain its water from within the city. The small amount of groundwater that the California Water Service Company obtains from wells located in the city could potentially be contaminated through hazardous waste sites, including leaking underground storage tanks. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan Policies 7.2-G-1, 7.2-I-1, 8.3-I-3 and 8.3-G-2 confirm the City's commitment to maintaining and improving groundwater quality and reducing the risk of contamination. Development proposed under the General Plan would not result in an increase in contamination. Contamination is likely to decrease, as many contaminated sites would be remediated to allow redevelopment. The proposed General Plan would reduce potentially significant groundwater contamination impacts to a less than significant level. While no mitigation is required, the Draft General Plan policies and programs listed under Impact No. 4.6-a will further reduce this impact. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional measures are required since this is not deemed a potentially significant impact. 4- 113 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Impact 4.6-e Future development may generate wastewater flows that exceed the collection and treatment capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would generate approximately 8,400 new residents and 9.0 million square feet of non-residential floor area (including a loss of 3.0 million square feet of industrial floor space). Wastewater generation at plan buildout is projected to increase by 2.4 MGD. The treatment plant is currently undergoing expansion to an operational capacity of 13 MGD in order to meet these projected flows; however, an additional expansion may be necessary to accommodate these projected flows as well as increased flows from San Bruno and Colma. The Draft General Plan includes policies and programs to ensure that demand for wastewater treatment does not outreach capacity. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The proposed General Plan provides policies related to wastewater treatment and capacity, as noted below: 5.3-G-4 Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the wastewater system to meet projected needs. 5.3-I-4 Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. With policies 5.3-G-4 and 5.3-I-4, the City would continue providing wastewater services in anticipation of projected growth levels and location. 5.3-I-6 Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, State, and regional standards; treatment costs should remain affordable. Policy 5.3-I-6 directs the City to continue to meet regional wastewater standards and ensure affordable rates. The following policies in the proposed General Plan make project proponents responsible for fully mitigating impacts to wastewater services: 5.3-G-5 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing wastewater service to new development. Policiy 5.3-G-5 ensures that project proponents finance their fair share of the cost of wastewater facilities. While the current treatment plant expansion is already financed and at completions will increase service capacity to meet the demand of additional development under the Draft General Plan, funding maybe needed for the rehabilitation or replacement of deteriorating sewer lines and the upgrade of the pump station control systems. 5.3-I-7 Encourage new projects in East of 101 that are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pretreatment, or other means as necessary. 4- 114 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Policy 5.3-I-7 requires large wastewater generators in East of 101 to institute water conservation and reuse programs to reduce the amount of water being sent to the treatment plant; however, if the treatment plant is operating below its capacity, these programs may not be necessary. The implementation of the proposed General Plan policies which relate to wastewater service provide a means to ensure the continued provision of adequate wastewater collection for existing and additional development in the city. The Draft General Plan policies and programs listed under Impact No. 4.6-e reduce the level of significant of this impact to a less than significant level. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional measures are required since this is not deemed a potentially significant impact. Impact 4.6-f Future development could generate additional amounts of solid waste that exceed available disposal capacity. The Source Reduction and Rerycling Element, Household Hazardous Waste Element, and Non-disposal Facilities Element already adopted by the City contains goals, programs, and policies aimed at reducing the amount of solid waste which must be disposed of at the landfill. The landfill will have capacity to handle solid waste generated by the city at buildout. In addition, the increased recycling capabilities at the new Scavenger facility will reduce the amount of solid waste sent to the landfill. Given these adopted Elements and new Scavenger facility, the planned increase in solid waste is not a significant impact. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The Health and Safety chapter of the Draft General Plan includes the following policies related to waste management: 8.3-G-1 Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 8.3-I-1 Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing rerycling, and complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Policies 8.3-G-1 and 8.3-I-1 direct the City to continue to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. While no mitigation is required, the Draft General Plan policies and programs listed under Impact No. 4.6-a will further reduce this impact. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested The policies and programs contained in the Draft General Plan ensure that the generation of solid waste that must be disposed open space at a landfill will be minimized and that there is 4- 115 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Updote adequate disposal space for waste that cannot be reused. No additional mitigation measures are required. RESIDUAL IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed General Plan would prevent significant impacts associated with water, wastewater, and solid waste services from occurring. Impacts associated with these services would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan and no further mitigation is required. 4- 116 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.7 FLOODING, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for flooding, hazardous materials, and emergency response is contained in Chapter 10: Safety of the Existing Conditions Report. Environmental Hazards Environmental conditions and the patterns of urban and industrial development in South San Francisco have created a series of significant risks to human health and property. The current General Plan does not have a Safety Element. Inclusion of a new Safety Element (Chapter 8) in the Draft General Plan will allow the City to address hazards in a comprehensive manner through hazard abatement policies and measures to reduce risks to life and property in existing and new development. Hazardous Materials and Waste Hazardous waste and hazardous materials are regularly transported through South San Francisco and used in the city, creating a potential hazard for residents and workers. In addition, industries and businesses generate a significant amount of hazardous waste. The storage and disposal of this waste determines the hazard that they represent; there are several seriously contaminated sites in the city, and in excess of 100 sites that have leaking underground storage tanks or are otherwise impaired. Several individual sites in the East of 101 area have major hazardous materials concentrations, all of which are sites with development opportunities. These sites include: • Koll Site. The 80-acre Sierra Point Landfill, now known as the Koll Site, received mixed municipal waste and construction and demolition debris from 1967 to 1971. The site produces landfill gas emissions and is subject to groundwater monitoring. The Koll Center-Sierra Point is presently partially developed in Brisbane as a business park and marina. Methane gas collection systems are included in each building. Future development on the vacant parcels would also require appropriate gas collection systems and continued monitoring for toxic gases. • Gateway Site. Bethlehem Steel operated a mill and fabrication plant from 1903 to 1977, producing steel from iron ore. Edwards Wire Rope produced galvanized steel wire and netting from 1916 to 1978. Over the plants' operational lives, slag, soil and debris containing heavy metals, oil and acids were deposited or used as fill material throughout the site. Extensive investigations and remediation efforts have already taken place. Both the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Department of Health Services (DHS) require that precautions be taken to inform 4- 117 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update and protect those excavating soil at this site in the future. A "Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions" is included as part of all future deeds and leases. • Shearwater Site. Steel fabrication at the U.S. Steel facility over nearly 50 years introduced lead, heavy hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls into the soil and groundwater. A 1990 preliminary site remediation plan calls for excavation of contaminated soils and encapsulation on-site. However, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has indicated that groundwater remediation may also be needed. Remedial investigation and a risk assessment would be required before development can proceed on the site. • Wildberg Brothers Site. The Wildberg Brothers site near Oyster Point was originally adjacent to San Francisco Bay, but is now approximately 275 feet south of the Bay margin due to progressive filling. Precious metals refining and recovery occurred from 1907 to 1980, and concentrations of copper, nickel, lead and zinc may, according to the RWQCB, pose a threat to water quality in San Francisco Bay. The site has been placed on the RWQCB's North Bay Toxics List for further evaluation. The presence of hazardous materials or hazardous waste in soil or groundwater in the city's commercial and industrial areas could constrain development of certain areas due to the actual or perceived threat to human health and the costs associated with site cleanup. The actual health threat at a given site depends upon a number of factors, such as the quantity and toxicity of contaminants, exposure, and the available pathways for contaminants to affect human health. Cleanup of hazardous waste sites is mandated by law and enforced by the appropriate regulatory agencies in order to protect human health, resources, and the environment. Cleanup is usually expensive and can be a significant factor in the viability of land development. Flooding Runoff in the city is directed to Cohna Creek. Because the city is highly urbanized, runoff is relatively high, increasing the potential for flood conditions in periods of heavy rainfall. The principal flooding problems exist near the eastern edge of the city where flows of Colma Creek are limited by passage under the Caltrain railroad tracks and US 101. Flood depth during the 100-year storm is about two to three feet west of the Caltrain tracks in this area. Many homes in South San Francisco may be exposed to flood hazards because they are constructed with the floor level at ground surface, lacking sufficient elevation to remain above even shallow flooding. Flood control projects are planned to be completed on Cohna Creek by 2002; these projects are expected to reduce flood hazard on all reaches of the creek from a 10- to 20-year storm event to a 50-year storm recurrence. 4- 118 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Increase exposure to 100- and S00-year flood hazards. • Generation of runoff that exceeds the capacity of Planning Area storm drains. • Create a potential public health hazard or increase the exposure or risk of exposure of people to hazardous materials; or • Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.7-a Future development could result in increases in local storm runoff volumes due to increased impervious surface area. The local increases in stormwater volume could increase flooding potential in the local area and downstream of the discharge area, thereby affecting the Colma Creek watershed drainage. The City of South San Francisco is a highly developed urban area, but further reduction of overall watershed infiltration capabilities is still possible. Streets, roofs, parking lots, and driveways all add to the amount of impervious surfaces that prevent rainfall from percolating into the groundwater, and thereby increase stormwater runoff. Increased storm runoff changes the character of the receiving channels and streams by increasing the peak flow during and immediately after storms, and decreases the amount of stream recharge from groundwater between storms and during the summer. In addition to cumulative changes in water runoff characteristics, urban development also adds to the amount of nonpoint-source pollution that may find its way into waterways. It is important to know the possible impacts of urban growth in order to plan for changes in the natural balance of the watershed, and to allow for adjustments to maintain watershed equilibrium and natural function. Development within the Planning Area could create impervious surfaces (streets, curbs, roofs, concrete, and asphalt) where permeable soils currently exist. Impervious surfaces would prevent precipitation from infiltrating, causing it to pond or run off. Stormwater runoff from developed sites may concentrate and cause increases in volume of runoff for the area. Discharge of the concentrated runoff may cause localized flooding at storm drain connections or downstream of the discharge location. Each redevelopment site would need to integrate the capacity and drainage patterns of the existing storm drain system into design plans for the particular structure or improvement. 4- 119 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 8.2-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco. 8.2-I-1 Continue working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP). 8.2-I-2 Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed development subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards. 8.2-I-3 Encourage FEMA to update the 100-year floodplain boundaries to reflect the new limits of flood hazard constraint to be determined by the completion of the Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project. 7.2-I-2 Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in STOPP as needed. Policies 8.2-I-1 and 8.2-I-2 are depicted in Figure 4.7-1: Draft General Plan Policies for Flood Protection. 4 - 120 0 G ti c1 ~~~ ~o~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~ o o ~ ~•~ ~. ~~° w• a ~, ~. ~y ~ ~ o orr' ~ ~. ~. y ~ w y' ~ y a N `n N .d ~ .-. '-n ~ o ~• SZ° ~ ~ ~p N ~ ~ '+ r-n .-. ~y ~' V i N w . r 0 n 0 v rn 0 ro d ~.~~~,~/ ~r~ 1 ',. ~T e ~7 i III ': ~. ,~~~,~ n 0 0 0 ~\ o ~ 3 r N m 0 O ~, I \\\\ l Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigotion Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Impact 4.7-b Human exposure to hazardous materials can occur from properties with existing contamination or properties that utilize these substances in their operations. Disturbance of any remaining contaminated areas during Planning Area project development work could inadvertently expose construction workers or the environment to hazardous waste. Releases of hazardous materials from existing or future businesses could also occur and expose humans or the environment to adverse effects. Exposure to hazardous wastes could cause various short-term or long-term health effects. Possible health effects could be acute (immediate, or of short-term severity), chronic (long- term, recurring, or resulting from repeated exposure), or both. Acute effects, often resulting from a single exposure, could result in a range of effects from minor to major, such as nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, or burns. Chronic exposure could result in systemic damage or damage to organs, such as the lungs, liver, or kidneys. Health effects would be specific to each hazardous substance. Existing or future businesses that use hazardous materials in their operations may inadvertently release these substances to the air, soil, surface water or groundwater. If the release is not contained, the substance may expose and adversely impact the public and the environment. These releases could be in form of poisonous gas clouds, liquid releases from above ground or subsurface containment vessels, or through smoke in the event of a chemical fire. Hazardous waste exposure is also possible from releases during transportation, especially in truck or train accidents. Underground storage tanks that contained petroleum products are known to have been present in the Planning Area. Leaking underground storage tanks are a common source of soil and groundwater contamination. The contents released from some underground storage tanks (gasoline, solvents) may represent a human health hazard or cause impacts to subsurface soil and groundwater quality. Underground tanks or residual contamination soil and groundwater contamination resulting from a former leaking tank after removal, could pose a health threat to site workers during construction excavation or if not discovered, pose an exposure hazard to the public following development. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 7.2-I-3 Prepare and disseminate information, including a page on the City's web-site, about the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe alternative measures, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for home and garden use. 8.3-G-i Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 4 - 123 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 8.3-G-2 Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous substances as established by federal (EPA), state (DTSC, RWQCB, Cal OSHA, Cal EPA), and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations. 8.3-I-1 Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. 8.3-I-2 Continue to comply with the Zoning Ordinance's hazardous waste regulations. 8.3-I-3 Prepare a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage for the sites included in the Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. 8.3-I-4 Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials. Impact 4.7-c Operations within the Planing Area could increase the exposure of structures and persons to potential hazards including earthquakes, fire, geologic hazards, and flooding. Development projects in the Planning Area could increase the number of commercial, residential, and other public facilities within certain areas of South San Francisco. Development of properties would attract a greater number of persons to these areas and therefore expose additional persons to potential hazards. Adding additional persons and facilities to these Downtown properties would increase the demand on South San Francisco's emergency services in the event of a major earthquake, flood, fire or hazardous materials emergency. Depending on the time of day an emergency situation occurs, evacuations from public buildings and temporary relocation of people throughout South San Francisco could be required. Failure in water, electricity, and natural gas service within higher density areas could increase the need for temporary emergenry assistance. Transportation routes would likely become less accessible, especially in high-density commercial areas from which patrons would attempt to leave. Further, access to other parts of the city provided to emergency vehicles could be reduced due to activity in the higher density commercial areas. If I-280, El Camino Real, or US 101 were temporarily shut down, alternative routes could become hindered by traffic in South san Francisco's Downtown area. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 8.5-G-1 Provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. 4 - 124 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 8.5-I-1 Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. 8.5-I-2 Control and/or intervene in conduct recognized as threatening to life and property. 8.5-I-3 Reduce crime by strengthening the police%ommunity partnership. 8.5-I-4 Assess community needs and expectations on an ongoing basis and report periodically to the City Council on citizen complaints and citizen commendations received. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. RESIDUAL IMPACTS There will be no residual impacts. 4 - 125 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update 4.8 POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for fire hazards is contained in Chapter 10: Safety of the Existing Conditions Report. Existing police and fire protection facilities are not discussed in the Existing Conditions Report. This section describes the environmental setting for police and fire facilities. Law Enforcement The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes all. of South San Francisco. Two unincorporated pockets, including the California Golf and Country Club, are under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff's office. Facilities The Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation departments share facilities within the City's Municipal Building. The Police Department has one station, located in the Municipal Building at 33 Arroyo Drive. The Department has a total of 122 employees, with 80 sworn officers, and 40 police units. These units include: • Evidence Van (1); • Parking Enforcement Vehicles (2); • Youth Employment Van (1); • Enforcement Motorcycles (5); • Unmarked Vehicles (10);and • Marked Patrol Vehicles (19).2 Response times are broken down into four priority levels: • Priority 1-Dispatch immediately; • Priority 2 -Dispatch within 15 minutes; • Priority 3 -Dispatch within 30 minutes; and • Priority 4 -Dispatch when officers available. The department is able to respond to priority 1, priority 2, and priority 3 calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the department's response time goals. The entire city is patrolled except for the undeveloped Sierra Point area.3 =Michael Massoni, Traffic/Planning Liaison Sergeant, written communication, April 14, 1998. 4 - 126 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update The department typically works afour-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by aone-officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap.` The current per capita ratio of officers is 1.4 per 1,000 people. Deficiencies and Planned Improvements While response times are generally acceptable, a concern of the Police Department is the lengthy response time of five to 13 minutes to and from Sierra Point, which would be a problem if development occurred in that area without significant access improvements. Response times from this site back to the main City limits are in excess of two to three times the acceptable limits for serious calls.s Fire Safety Fire Hazards Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding resources. Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, two factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations: • Vegetation. Accumulations of vegetation serve as fuel for wildland fires; large concentrations of fuel, particularly where fires can spread from ground level to the tops of trees, can create conditions where wildland fires spread rapidly. Vegetation on both public- and privately-owned land in South San Francisco is generally poorly maintained and overgrown. Non-native vegetation in and near open spaces such as French broom, eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress, currently pose the greatest threat of wildland fire. Defensible fire breaks around structures and residential properties in particular are generally poor or non-existent. • Infrastructure. Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the City's ability to respond to fire. Poor access and inadequate local water supply can increase the loss of life and property in a fire. While most of the areas near open spaces have good access and water supply, access is poor near Sign Hill and along Dundee Drive. The Sign Hill area also has limited water supply. ' Ibid. ' Draft Environmental Impact Report, East of 101 Area Plan, January 1994. 5 Draft Environmental Impact Report, East of 101 Area Plan, January 1994. 4 - 127 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Eight fire hazard management units were identified in areas that need vegetation management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for successful fire suppression. Each management unit is designated as high, medium or low priority in recognition of the relative need for risk management. Sign Hill, the Hillside School area, and the area along Dundee Drive have the highest priority due to the combination of fuel characteristics, infrastructure and adjacent uses. Management approaches are recommended for each unit. Access for fire and other safety personnel is good in areas other than the Sign Hill and Dundee management units, with the exception of the currently undeveloped Koll property on Siena Point. This site can presently only be reached by passing through the portion of Sierra Point that is within Brisbane. It is expected that development on the Koll property will require access improvements. Table 4.8- I Fire Hazard Management Units High Priority Management Units Characteristics Sign Hill Unmanaged vegetation with extremely poor access. Hillside School Poorly maintained eucalyptus adjacent to school. Good access. Dundee Unmanaged vegetation with moderate to poor access. Medium Priority Management Units Gallen Unmanaged grass and shrub vegetation with good access. Low Priority Management Units San Bruno Mountain Grasses with occasional shrubs and good access. Abuu the new Terrabay Development. Alta Loma School Well-maintained eucalyptus with good access. Skyline Moderately maintained canopy vegetation with good access. Westborough Patchy grass and scrub vegetation with good access. Source: Environmental Saence Assodates (1997) Figure 4.8-1 shows the individual fire hazard management units. 4 - 128 ,. ~' ~ 0 0 o ~~ :if a - ~0 O _ ,. 3 r N m / N ~ <l S ~~` I ~ I ~ h Oq ~ ioi avrnrr~sn ~o ~ ~Q Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Facilities The South San Francisco Fire Department has jurisdiction over the entire city limits. Its facilities include five stations, with a total staff of 69 firefighters. The Department currently has 1.2 firefighters per 1,000 residents. A minimum of 23 firefighters are on duty at any given time. The Department's facilities are described below: • Central Fire Station, 201 Baden Avenue. Central Fire Station houses six personnel - the Battalion Chief, one engine company with three personnel, and one paramedic ambulance with two personnel. In addition, a reserve ambulance, a North County air truck (shared with other fire departments), a pickup truck, and an engine are stored at Central Station. • Fire Station 2, 249 Harbor Way. Station 2 houses three personnel -facilities include one engine company with three personnel, adisaster-equipped engine, and a snorkel truck. • Fire Station 3, 33 Arroyo Drive. This station houses five personnel - an engine company with three personnel and a paramedic ambulance with two personnel. • Fire Station 4, 2350 Galway Drive. Station 4 houses three personnel - an engine company with three personnel, a reserve engine, and a reserve ambulance. • Fire Station 5, 1151 South San Francisco Drive. This station houses three personnel - one quint company with three personnel and a reserve engine.b The Fire Department responds to emergency calls related to fires as well as to medical and other emergencies. The response time goal is between three and four minutes, which is currently met for approximately 80 percent of all calls. Hazardous material incidents in the Planning Area are responded to by the Fire Department, the California H~ghway Patrol, the Coast Guard, and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division. Deficiencies and Planned Improvements The Fire Department is planning structural and seismic improvement to its facilities. Station 3, currently located in the same building as the Police, and Parks and Recreation departments, maybe relocated. `Ronald Sciandri, Assistant Fire Chief, written communication, Apri16, 1998. 'Draft Environmental Impact Report, East of 101 Area Plan, January 1994. 4- 131 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Demand for police services exceeds availability. • Increase in exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards. • Demand for fire services exceeds availability. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.8-a New development may require police protection that exceeds availability. New residential and commercial/industrial development will increase the demand for police assistance. To maintain the ability to provide a rapid response to all life-threatening calls for assistance, the Police Department must add several new officers to meet the needs of the additional population of 8,200 expected at General Plan buildout. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The Health and Safety Element contains policies addressing law enforcement including: 8.5-G-1 Provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. 8.5-I-1 Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. 8.5-G-2 Assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community design. 8.5-I-2 Control and/or intervene in conduct recognized as threatening to life and property. 8.5-I-3 Reduce crime by strengthening the police%ommunity partnership. 8.5-1-4 Assess community needs and expectations on an ongoing basis and report periodically to the City Council on citizen complaints and citizen commendations received. 8.5-I-5 Continue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, state and federal plans. Policies 8.5-G-1 and 8.5-I-1 ensure the provision of police service to meet the needs of existing and future populations. This polity aims at providing a safe and secure environment for the city's residents by successfully controlling conduct that threatens life or property and responding to all emergencies in a rapid and timely manner. Implementation of these policies would ensure that adequate police service would be provided as development occurs under the General Plan; therefore, impacts of General Plan implementation on police service would be less than significant. 4 - 132 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Impact 4.8-b New development could result in an increase in exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would reduce the fire hazards in the city and minimize fire risk in new development to levels that are less than significant. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan The Health and Safety chapter of the Draft General Plan contains the following policies related to fire hazard: 8.4-I-1 Institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards on public lands in those management units identified in Figure 8.4-1 (Figure 4.8-1 of the DEIR] and Table 8.4-1 (Table 4.8-2 of the DEIR] below. Table 4.8-2 Summary Of Fire Hazard Reduction Recommendations Management Unit Recommendations Sign Hill Combination of hand and mechanical to clear a 100-foot buffer around residences. Hand applied and targeted use of herbicides may be considered. Where possible, all French broom should be removed. Eucalyptus and other trees should be regularly maintained and pruned. Young saplings should be removed or controlled. Maintain and expand existing road system. Implement a comprehensive public education and facilitation program. These actions are consistent with the Sign Hill Habitat Conservation Plan. Hillside School Prune trees of low hanging material and clear debris and leaf litter. Dundee Combination of hand and mechanical labor to clear a 100-foot buffer around residences. Hand-applied and targeted use of herbicides may be considered. Eucalyptus and other trees should be regularly maintained and pruned. Maintain and expand existing road system. Implement a comprehensive public education and facilitation program. Broadcast burn during the winter or spring, or hand removal of debris and low hanging branches Gallen Combination of hand and mechanical labor to control shrubby material. Hand-applied and targeted use of herbicides may be considered. Buffer strip between vegetation and residential structures. San Bruno No treatment recommended. Mountain Alta Loma School Continue regular pruning and maintenance of eucalyptus and other trees. Skyline Regularly prune uees and woody planu. Westborough Combination of hand and mechanical labor to clear a 100-foot buffer around residences. 4 - 133 Chapter 4: Environmentol Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmentol Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update 8.4-I-2 Explore incentives or programs as part of the comprehensive fire hazard management program to encourage private landowners to reduce fore hazards on their property. Policies 8.4-I-1 and 8.4-I-2 would ensure that fire hazards of management units and private lands are reduced through the institution of a comprehensive fire hazard management program. These policies will mitigate the cumulative impact on fire hazards to a level that is less than significant. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested The policies of the Draft General Plan reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. Impact 4.8-c New development could require fire protection that exceeds availability. Anticipated population growth associated with General Plan implementation would result in a need for increased fire protection services in the city. The additional population of 8,200 added to the city at General Plan buildout would require additional firefighters to meet the increased need. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan Policy 8.5-I-5 listed under impact 4.8-a aims at meeting future demand for efficient, high quality fire protection services resulting from new development. Implementation of polity 8.5-I-5 would ensure that adequate fire protection service would be provided as development occurs under the General Plan; therefore, impacts of General Plan implementation on fire service would be less than significant. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested The policies of the Draft General Plan reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. RESIDUAL IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts on police and fire protection services. 4 - 134 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Droft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.9 PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for parks, recreation, and open space is contained in Chapter 8: Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Schools of the Existing Conditions Report. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space From both land use and operational perspectives, parks and schools are closely coordinated in South San Francisco. Parks are often located adjacent to school facilities, and programs organized by the Parks and Recreation Department regularly use school facilities for events, sports activities, child care, and classes. Future planning efforts should recognize both the particular uses of schools and parks and the relationships between them; for example, while use of school playfields for some recreation activities is appropriate and achieves efficient service provision, school fields may not be appropriate for informal recreation. South San Francisco currently includes 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents, for public use. This includes 70 acres of developed parkland (community, neighborhood, mini, and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space, and 81.2 acres of school lands. While the overall amount of parkland appears adequate to meet the community's needs, closer analysis reveals that only 1.2 acres of developed parkland, excluding school parks and open space, is available per 1,000 residents. Under the direction of its 1990 and 1997 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plans, the City is currently addressing the specific deficiencies in park and recreational opportunities. Present efforts are focused on improving and expanding the city's major community park, Orange Memorial Park, as well as developing and improving two newly acquired park sites. The City also intends to improve bayfront access at new shoreline development, enhance bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the city in a system of linear parks, and continue its ongoing safety and accessibility upgrade program. Existing and proposed parks and schools, and their distribution in the City's ten neighborhood Planning Areas, are shown in Figure 4.9-1. 4 - 135 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4 - 136 Chopter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in: A shortage of parks and open space facilities for new residents. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.9-a Future development may create a shortage of parks and open space facilities for the residents and employees of South San Francisco. The proposed General Plan would result in a total population increase of 8,200, generating a demand for additional parkland in the city. If no additional parkland were developed, the additional population would increase the use of existing facilities, which are already heavily used due to the existing shortage of parkland. Park standards established in the proposed General Plan include standards for parks in residential areas (3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents), supported by residential development, and in employment areas, with new parkland to be funded by requirements based on employment generated (0.5 acres per 1,000 new employees). With the expected addition of 8,200 residents and 27,500 employees over the plan horizon, the proposed General Plan will provide approximately 38 acres of new parkland to meet these standards. In addition, the proposed General Plan provides for approximately 69.5 acres of new linear parks and open space in the City to meet existing demands for additional parkland. These provisions should allow the City to more than double its developed parkland acreage to 178 acres (Chart 4.9-1). Likewise, the 2.6 acres of parkland provided for every 1,000 residents represents an increase of more than 1 acre for every 1,000 residents. The current ratio is 1.2. The additional parkland resulting from implementation of the General Plan would reduce the potential impact to a level that is less than significant. Chart 4.9- I Existing and Buildout Parkland 200 3.0 150 d L Q 100 50 70 178 1.2 2.6 Existing Buildout Existing Buildout ^ Parkland ^ Acres per I ,000 Residents 2.0 I.0 c v ~N d 0 0 0 L N d N N V Q 4 - 139 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan Proposed General Plan policies applicable to parkland acreage is included below: 5.1-G-1 Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas lacking these facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and employees. Guiding policy 5.1-G-1 is oriented towards providing additional parkland for new residents and employees. 5.1-I-2 Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees, to be located in employment areas. Policy 5.1-I-2 establishes standards for new park acreage, ensuring that the park system would be expanded as necessary to serve future populations. The standards set out in policy 5.1-I-2 will generate a need for 13.5 acres of new parkland in employment areas, and 24.6 acres of new parkland in residential areas based on a buildout population of 8,400. 5.1-I-4 Develop new parks in locations and sizes shown on Figure 5-1 5.1-I-5 Use the PROS Master Plan process to achieve additional parkland acreage, as necessary, to meet the residential parkland need at General Plan buildout. Policy 5.1-I-4 refers to the location of the new parkland. New parks are located throughout the city, particularly along the shoreline in the East of 101, which currently lacks adequate access and parking. Park sites shown on the General Plan Diagram meet the entire need for parkland in employment areas, providing 13.5 acres. Park sites on the General Plan Diagram provide 14.0 acres of the 24.6 acres required in residential areas at buildout. Policy 5.1-I-5 ensures the provision of sufficient acreage to meet the standards by requiring the PROS Master Plan process to provide the remaining 10.6 acres required, as necessary. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies 5.1-G-1, 5.1-I-2, 5.1-I-4, and 5.1-I-5 would ensure that sufficient acreage is provided to meet park standards established for new residents and employees. The proposed policies would also increase park acreage to existing population ratios. Additional parkland will result from creation of new linear and mini-parks, for which no specific standards are established in the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to park acreage. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested The policies listed above ensure that adequate park facilities will be provided to future populations. These policies reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant, and no additional mitigations are required. 4 - 140 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update RESIDUAL IMPACTS There will be no residual impacts. 4- 141 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.10 SCHOOLS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for schools is contained in Chapter 8: Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Schools of the Existing Conditions Report. Schools South San Francisco Unified School District1SSFUSD) operates all public schools serving South San Francisco, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno. The South San Francisco Unified School District operates ten elementary schools, three middle schools and wee-two high schools, as well as an adult continuation school and other specialized programs and services. The District owns two closed schools, Serra Vista and Southwood. A Facilities Use Study is being undertaken to determine future uses for these sites. These schools are currently used by the County for sRecial education programs. While all but two schools currently operate within student capacity, projections indicate that this capaci~ is not likely to be reached or exceeded during the General Plan horizon. Although projected residential development-and recent State-directed class size reduction efforts-are likely to add new students, an aging population and a trend toward smaller families in South San Francisco will reduce the student population. Some schools have recently been closed since they are no longer needed, and additional schools may need to be closed in coming ears for the same reason. Avtiroximately 10,100 students were enrolled in South San Francisco schools in January 1999. With adistrict-wide capacity of close to 11,115 students, enrollment exceeded capacity at only one elementary school and one high school. Table 5.2-1 outlines current enrollment and capacity for each school in the District. 4 - 142 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.10- I Schools, Enrollment, and Capacity Enrollment 1~ 999) Estimated Capacity I Elementary Schools (K-5) Buri-Burl 704-I-9 775 Hillside 363343 405 Junipero Serra 4034a-4 427 Los Cerritos 3634a-6 434 Martin 424499 456 Monte Verde 504 514 Ponderosa 370389 410 Skyline 57976 6 13 Spruce 630rr79 596 Sunshine Gardens 3853x78 480 Total Elementary Schools 4,725 51 I 0 Middle Schools (6-8) Alta Loma 721783 861 Parkway 809$83 t 067 Westborough 7 167-F$ 797 Total Middle Schools 2.246''4 2725 High Schools (9-12) EI Camino 1.464~H-3 1500 South San Francisco 1.555478 1544 Baden Continuation 11845 236 Total High Schools 3.1373$ 3,271 Total 10.108+9.37 I I , 115 1 Estimated from doss loading standards and dossrooms 1rsted in the Five Yeor Fadlrty Plon. Source: South San Francisco Unified School District Dyett & Bhatia Buildout of the General Plan will result in the addition of 2,800 housing units, or an increase in Population of about 8,200. Based on California Department of Finance projections by age class and San Mateo County enrollment projections, a decrease in enrollment in the South San Francisco Unified School District of 941 elementary, 250 junior high, and 677 high school students, or a total of 1,870 students compared to current enrollment will result over the General Plan horizon. This forecast is consistent with the low-medium Projections of the 4 - 143 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Anolysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update SSFUSD, which were only computed through 2010. It should be noted that these are projections and future enrollment may vary due to population demographics and other factors that influence school enrollment. Table 5.2-2 outlines current and projected enrollment by school type within the District. Table 4.10-2: Current and Proiected School Enrollment at Buildout Grade Current Enrollment Projected Enrollment Change in an. 1999 at Buildout Enrollment Elementary~K-6l, 4.725 3.784 -94 I junior High (7-81 2.246 1.996 -250 High (9-12j 3.137 2.460 -677 Total 10.108 8.240 - I ,868 Sources: South San Francisco Unified School District Dyett & Bhatia SSFUSD is currently focusing its capital improvement efforts on the modernization and renovation of its existing facilities. All of South San Francisco's schools were built between 1935 and 1970, and many are in serious need of repairs and upgrades. The District has issued a $40 million general obligation bond for school renovation to be matched by the State, enabling the needed restoration work. IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: ~ Generate student levels that exceed available or planned school capacity. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.10-a New development may generate additional students that must be accommodated by the South San Francisco Unified School District. Buildout of the General Plan will result in the addition of 2,800 housing units, or an increase in population of about 8,200. Based on Department of Finance projections by age class and San Mateo County enrollment projections, a decrease in enrollment in the South San Francisco Unified School District of 941 elementary, 250 junior high, and 677 high school students, or a total of 1,870 students compared to current enrollment will result over the General Plan horizon. This forecast is consistent with the low-medium projections of the SSFUSD which were only computed through 2010. In order to accommodate projected decreased enrollment, approximately three or four existing elementary schools may need to 4 - 144 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impaci Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update be closed and existing portable classrooms removed at junior high and high schools. The closed facilities could be used for a variety of purposes, including new parks and residential projects, new childcare facilities, or reserved for future school uses. The District will need to determine the use of these facilities. Impacts associated with SSFUSD would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed General Plan Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan General Plan policies relating to the provision of educational services are listed below: 5.2-G-1 Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to maintain and improve educational facilities and services. Policy 5.2-G-1 ensures that educational facilities and services will be maintained and improved to meet the needs of the existing and new population. 5.2-I-1 Work with the SSFUSD on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational purposes. Since projections reveal that several schools will close as enrollment declines, policy 5.2-I-1 relates to planning for future school site disposal. While the General Plan Diagram classifies a portion of the closed Southwood School site as parkland, other opportunities should be explored under the City's PROS Master Plan process (Policy 5.1-I-5). This will allow the City to relate new opportunities to anticipated park needs. Implementation of the proposed General Plan policies 5.2-G-1 and 5.2-I-1, related to the provision of school facilities, would prevent significant impacts on school facilities and services from occurring. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested The policies and programs contained in the Draft General Plan ensure that the generation of new students from new development would be accommodated by the SSFUSD. No additional mitigation measures are required. Residual Impacts No significant unavoidable impacts to the city's schools would occur with the implementation of the proposed General Plan. 4 - 145 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.1 I GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for geology, soils, and seismicity is contained in Chapter 10: Safety of the Existing Conditions Report. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity While most of South San Francisco is comprised of flat to gently sloping areas, steep hillsides surround the northern and western portions of the city. Figure 4.11-1 shows the geotechnical hazards in South San Francisco, including fault line locations and areas threatened by liquefaction and landslides. The Planning Area elevation is depicted in Figure 4.11-2 and the area's geology and stratigraphy is shown in Figure 4.11-3. Seismic and other structural hazards are related to two geologic conditions found in South San Francisco: • Soils in the flat lowland areas, comprised largely of Bay mud overlain with fill in the eastern portions of the city, have high shrink-swell potential, high water table, and low strength. These soil conditions amplify earthquake waves and groundshaking, and are subject to liquefaction. • Steeply-sloping hillside areas have soils with shrink-swell hazards, high erosion hazard, and low strength. Some of these soils have severe limitations for bearing dwellings without basements and for local roads. In addition, substantial portions of the south flank of San Bruno Mountain are classified as a high landslide risk area. The San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire city, creating potential for ground rupture and high levels of ground shaking. The distribution of earthquake wave amplification as related to geologic materials has been mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments (1995) with input from the U.S. Geological Survey (see Figure 4.11-4). Areas subject to extremely high or very high levels of wave amplification include the hills west of Callan Boulevard, adjacent to the San Andreas Fault zone, and the alluvial lowlands surrounding Colma Creek, between Orange and Linden Avenues. Most of the city would experience an intensity level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude, as shown in Figure 4.11-5. Portions of the city with unstable soil conditions, particularly the fill areas in the east, would experience particularly strong ground shaking. Other faults in the region may also generate earthquakes that affect South San Francisco. Within South San Francisco, earthquake damage to structures can be caused by ground rupture, near-field effects, liquefaction, landsliding, ground shaking and possibly inundation from seiche or tsunami. Buildings constructed prior to the 1970s in most cases would not meet current design provisions in the Uniform Building Code for earthquake forces. 4 - 146 o ~ •' G ' ~ ~ ' ~I d n p^ c. ~• E ~ A `. ~' R° ~ r m ~ ~ w ^ ~ o G' a N ~ ~ sb cR. ^ ^ '~ ~ db ~ a :~ a ~ ° " ~• N• ~ ~ ~' o ~" ] o ~ \ ~~ w ~ ~ ~ .j ~_ ~ ~ 5 g c ~ ~~ yy ., l ra Vn C '< `~ g ~ ~ ~. o a ° o n a d d o o .. 1 0 ro m f- ~ ir'" w ~ o0 o ~//i l %jZ l }} ~ iii' I _ -'/ r i h~~d; 1, / ii,- ~ I `_ -~ ~~f!((C f J '~J' :; l ,, ~;; J1 .. j ~• n • •~ 8 .~• / w • 0 0 0 ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~" "_ ; 1 '" 1 `: ~'~~~ b ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ z 0 ~ N N f~1 ro m m z M r~9 ~ ~,,, '%' f i ~. Q fD p O O O O O O ~ v rn 5 4 ~' ~~~ n ~ F{ ro d ~ `~ ~ :~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~ ~~ Fn O n `, , d~ o ~~~% 'C« .-,ii 'l''~'~,...',.. 3 (m/f 1` o '~ \ ~ ~ .~ , N T m ~,~ m _~ ~ ~• ~ N 0 Y A ~ ~ ~ I n O ~0 ~_ ``~ l \~~ \~~ ~\ ~~ ~ ~\ n,', l ~_ O n Cr1 o~ `J O W~ ru .~` A ~ ~y. ~ ~ ~1 TO C:~ ~ ~ eye pyi ~ p .~i n , ~'''~ ~'vo " ~' ma ~° o ~' ~ ~ T a °~ ~ 6 p ~'" rv o ~ + d ~ O. rn b G~. ~ d ~ N ~ ~ end W ~ 7 O G' ~Ci (p ~~ o ~ O O ~ yO. O ~ d f9 p, 7 ~~-. G w » ~ t~ 7S- re II • ' ~ ry ~ '.,. N ~ < m ~ - .~ o c ;, B ~ ~ ^ S. ,~ i. y a a ea ~ ~ ^ Y.q ~1 pp~~ C ~,I: ~. d O ~j .^r~trY '~"~~ e"e ~ C ~~t~~Y~~~~'~. P .~ ~ q~l^~~J~ O A 3 r ~ N <' • ~- O ~~ ^\' !~ ^~ {..L N P'r ~ T ~ ~. ~Q • (~D ~ ~ w -v ~ w _-_ I~ z` > Y z a b '» b z b b > ? O ~ Z b O ~ '-1 rn f1 n O _I ro w n m t.:~ ~~ . 1~~~? ~~ s~i`~'`,,?? `~ .~'~tif:''~ .ep:~4a m •• T~ ~I~~ 1~~., i `iA i'~: ao~ ~~ (r a,~~~ J~,~ £ ~ ~ ~ }} ~#x _ fr ` o'o~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ yy { ski 't~ ~ ~ ~i ~cx :~, ~~ f J j {{ Q ~ ~ ,> 1 T ~ f,t~.~~, ~ F~ . n ~ ~E~ ~ { t~; f ~ 1 . ~ ~.: ~~ ti ,. mod. ~f ~ ~ ~~' f ~ ; f ~ ~ > f nY, ~. ; t ~', ~ ~~ C J ff ~ /J~ } ~ ~ ~ `3 k F g 11 t~ ~ 1 (~~< D~~ IIII ~`~ ~ z e ~ I ~ + t . 4~ c . s , '. ~ ~` O NJ ~ r ~ L ~'~ i~' » ~ ~ * ~ J /i . ~ ~ k +p ~ r. i~` s 1 R' C~ •C ~ \~Z } . +~ ~ ~ ~ ~' '~ _ !' ~, ~ 'R 1 I ~ ~~~ / ( i ~ ~ i ; . 3 ~'i ,. ~ ~ ~ ^. %• ~ a Ad # ~~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ I 7 . I `~ I \ 1 I `1 1 , ; ,• _ I,/ ;~~, i '~ .,.. ~~'~ d : ~f.. d ~ ~ a p ° ~ ~ ~ ' . . o., .~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ r x x b 0 c ., 9 O ~- A ~X c~ 0 s~. ~.=1 ~~~~ ~_r 0 o \ \/ \~~ C_ 3 N m .• .• ,• .• .• ~z//~I L~//J ,~ ~~ ~C O 0 ;~-~ ~ • • j ~ • ~• n / ~ o i /.' ~ d /.j, 0 `'i'iiil ~ A~, l,~, ' m` '~' ~'7fi ~-.' ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~- ~ ~ r ~ , . ~ -~ ` ` ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~v~ a ~ ~ < j ~~ ~ F < ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , , ~ ~, ~ 50 y. .. ~a d ~ O ro .y z ~ x ~ ~~ n n y a ~ ~ ~ fA K ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ K ~ o ~- ~ ~ ~' ~ (D ~~ -~ 4... ~ / 'G'I n rn < ~, ;ti~~ Y 9 ~~~ c~ ~ ,~ , 0 .~ w n~ w Ir ``~ li ,; 3' ~ • i / • ~~ O j • ~ / /~ • • • • . f ~'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ :;r ~, ~~ ~4 .~ 3 N `1 o\~ ~ ~_-~ ;~ ~ < ;. ~ ~ r , ,. ~, h~ ,~ ti .';~~ ~ i ~ n ~t 6~ ~ ~ t"., RM~~Bi N. ~ ~~'1~ t i ~ ~ ~ ` .~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 4'' ~° ~. ~ '~1 r ~ `1 ,t f ) ~ ~ a~° ~ ~~ VI ° ,U P ` ~ ~ ~ A ~ 1,` 1 , i \~ 1 I Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including groundshaking and surface fault ruptures. • Increase susceptibility to geologic hazards, including expansive soils, landsliding, and differential settlement. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.11-a In the event of a major earthquake in the region, seismic groundshaking could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to existing and proposed structures. Groundshaking could potentially expose people and property to seismic-related hazards, including localized liquefaction and related ground failure. The Planning Areas could experience at least one major earthquake (greater than moment magnitude 7) within the next 30 years. The intensity of such an event would depend on the causative fault and the distance to the epicenter, the moment magnitude, and the duration of shaking. Unreinforced masonry buildings and those constructed in the early to mid-1900s would be expected to incur the greatest structural damage. Damage could be high in buildings constructed on improperly engineered fills or artificial fills at the Bay margin. In the event of an earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region, seismic hazards related to groundshaking could occur in susceptible areas within South San Francisco. Cut slopes in upland areas could be susceptible to failure during excessive groundshaking, and areas where construction fills are present could experience differential settlement. Landslides could damage property and expose people to rockfall hazards. Differential settlement could cause structural damage to foundations. Liquefaction potential is highest in the areas underlain by Bay fills, Bay mud and unconsolidated alluvium. Liquefaction-related failures could damage foundations, disrupt utility service, and cause damage to roadways. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 8.1-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco. 8.1-I-1 Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community, in areas identified in Figure 8-2. 4 - 157 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impoci Analysis and Mitigation Drofi Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 8.1-I-2 Require geotechnical and engineering geology reports as part of the development review process prior to approval of any development on sites within seismically sensitive lands, as indicated in Figure 8-5. (Figure 4.11-6 of the DEIR) 8.1-I-3 Explore programs that would build incentives to retrofit unreinforced masonry buildings. The Draft General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands are depicted in Figure 4.11-6. 4 - 158 %/~ v~~~~i~//mil h//J 111~,~//~/// \ // Jl)I "I1 I ,~y. \. ro 0 n' ~n° ao ~. R° ao N ~~ CO~~ -,~ r.~~=/7a O ~// b w >,~- ,:: .,~; 4.. ~-. z > `i x a ~ b b z b b > o ~ x b O ti y z ti n r o /° ~~ ~ • v /l V/~- ~ ~ / ~ ~ ' pv~ • ~~ ~ ~ • a , ~ ~~ - ~ ~~ ~ (/ ( _ ~ ~/~ ~~ / ~ 1 J // a ~ ~~ I I ~11/~l ~ 51~~1 ~~ ~ ~, ~ (~ k ~ l ~ ~ l J~ ~ ~ ~I ! ~ iii"'/""""'-.._ ` f" . y j£ x ' ~ / ~.~ ~ • - '' -.x ~ ~ ~ f ~~ j '' f ~ i8f~ ~ ~ ^~`\j .:1y ti. ~ ~ ,k ~. ~~ ~ ~ r` ~~ C ~ M~ 1 ~~ i< ( I - ~.~ ~~~ '~; F ~ iIj ''i~ e :<~y a ~ 1~ f - ~_ I$ ~ / ~~~ ~ ~~ y f _ t E ~ se. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~T ~ k r7 rt i i ~~ : ( I ~ ~ ~~ S(~ ~ ~. q/ ~ ~ #~~ . ~ ~ nse4 '~Y: ~ 4 s 4 ~ A ~9 f ~ ~ ~ ~ f @ ~\~, ~ ~ ~ ..y,.iC \-.. Z r ~ ~ ~ \ / ~~~ ~ ~ h \ ,. 'Y ti ' 1' ~I~^~ Z ~= ~ ~ I ~ i h ~ .~ 4 ~ i~ t { 1 C `~ -- A I~ ~' ~ ,t ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ % ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~° tt:f'f~ 1~ 1 ..L... C ~a 3 ~ J\ ~~ ~ ' 1 E!~ ` ~\ ,~ i~..aial. ~ ` i. `:2 ~ 4`_.R ACA<~ ` ,'1 + ~`~.~ \t \ ` / ,.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ y i M ]` ~ Y ~ ! ~ ~ J xp S Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.11-b In the event of a major San Andreas Fault Zone earthquake, the western portion of South San Francisco, located adjacent to the fault and within the Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zone, would be susceptible to surface fault rupture. Such an earthquake could expose people and property to the hazards associated with surface fault rupture. Portions of South San Francisco, are located adjacent to the active traces of the San Andreas Fault Zone. Active fault traces of the San Andreas fault have been accurately located in the extreme western end of the city. This area is located within the confines of an earthquake fault hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The Alquist- Priolo Act regulates development near active faults and prohibits the location of most structures for human occupancy across active fault traces to thereby mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. Cities and counties must regulate certain development projects within the zones. In the event of a San Andreas Fault Zone earthquake, fault surface rupture may occur and affect buildings, pavement, utilities, and roads along the fault. When fault rupture occurs on a fault such as the San Andreas, the surface displaces not only laterally, but also sometimes vertically. Surface rupture can damage or collapse buildings, cause severe damage to roads and pavement structures, and cause failure of overhead as well as underground utilities. As a result of the damage, buildings could become uninhabitable, roads would be closed, and utility service disrupted for an undeterminable length of time. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan Policies 8.1-G-1, 8.1-I-1, 8.1-I-2, and 8.1-I-3 listed under impact 4.11-a. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required Impact 4.11-c The Planning Area in South San Francisco could be subjected to geologic hazards, including expansive soils, landsliding, and differential settlement. Expansive soils could be encountered in various hillside locations in South San Francisco. Typically, soils that exhibit expansive characteristics comprise the upper five feet of the surface. The effects of expansive soils could damage foundations of aboveground structures, paved roads and streets, and concrete slabs. Expansion and contraction of soils, depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration, could exert enough pressure on structures to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift. 4- 161 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Landsliding due to static forces (that is, not seismically induced) could occur in steeply- sloped areas in South San Francisco. Landslide potential increases in areas where construction activity, such as road building or grading for building sites, reduces slope support. Over- steepened slopes, slope saturation in areas of heavy rainfall, and removal of slope vegetation can also increase landslide potential. Landsliding of existing slopes could expose people to rockfall hazards and property damage. Landsliding in cut slopes produced during grading could cause damage and disrupt construction projects. Differential settlement can occur depending on the underlying soil materials. Areas most susceptible to settlement would be those underlain by less consolidated alluvial material and artificial fills, such as poorly placed construction fills. Differential settlement could damage building foundations, affect underground utilities, and cause settlement in streets and roads. Settlement could be reduced or eliminated in areas that support buildings, because the soils have been allowed to settle over time. Settlement would be a concern in areas of redevelopment that have not previously supported structures and where new structures would place loads heavier than the soils could tolerate. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan Policies 8.1-G-1, 8.1-I-1, 8.1-I-2, and 8.1-I-3 listed under impact 4.11-a and 8.1-I-1 listed under impact 4.11-c. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required RESIDUAL IMPACTS There will be no residual impacts. 4 - 162 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for hydrology and water quality is contained in Chapter 9: Environmental Resources of the Existing Conditions Report. Hydrology and Water Quality Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by the ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast and that are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay. Colma Creek is almost entirely channelized west of the Bayshore Freeway. There are some sedimentation basins, but no other impoundments on Colma Creek. Drainage is controlled by a series of lined creek beds and storm drains. Runoff in the hills is relatively rapid because of steep slopes and clay soils, and is slower in the flat lowlands areas. Runoff is collected in storm drains and is discharged to Colma Creek or San Francisco Bay. Some infiltration into the ground occurs, but because the City is largely developed with a high proportion of impermeable surface, runoff is relatively high. Groundwater The area southwest of Colma Creek is underlain by a portion of the San Mateo Groundwater Basin, which stretches from Daly City to Menlo Park. Groundwater flows from Lake Merced easterly toward San Francisco Bay. Much of the alluvium that underlies the lowland areas of the City is capable of transmitting groundwater, especially in the southwestern portion of the City. Where gravel and coarse sand materials are abundant, the beds have good transmissive characteristics both for downward percolation of water and lateral migration. Where a bed of such character is saturated, it is called an aquifer (San Mateo County, 1986). The basin underlying the City is divided into two aquifer systems: • The Cohna aquifer system (in the Colma Formation) is shallower and multi-layered. • The Merced aquifer system (in the Merced Formation) is locally confined by relatively impermeable geologic strata. 4 - 163 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plon Update Nonpoint Source Pollution Control All streamflow in Colma Creek originates as stormwater and irrigation runoff: Vehicle- accessible points along Colma Creek and industrial areas east of US 101 are major pollutant source areas. As an urban stream, Colma Creek is likely to have high levels of some metals such as zinc, lead and copper. Pollutants in Colma Creek affect the immediate habitat and are ultimately discharged into the Bay near sensitive mudflat habitat areas. Water quality is a particular area of concern because of the ease of water pollution and the effects of pollution on nearshore wildlife habitat. While point sources of pollution are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sysyem (NPDES) permit process, nonpoint sources, such as urban runoff into Colma Creek, are difficult to control. An additional water-related issue is the likelihood of a relatively high groundwater table in the eastern portion of the city, which is susceptible to pollution from current or past industrial uses, resulting in increased development costs. IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Substantial increase of nonpoint-source pollution entering stormwater runoff and entering the regional storm drain system or surrounding water resources. • Substantial increase of construction-related erosion and sedimentation into surface waters. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.12-a Operation of individually proposed structures in the Planning Area and their cumulative whole could result in increased nonpoint-source pollution entering stormwater runoff and entering the regional storm drain system or surrounding water resources. Use of landscaping chemicals (pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, and herbicides), cleaning solvents, paint, litter or other debris, and accumulation of petroleum products and metals in parking lots are all sources of polluted runoff. Landscaping chemicals can infiltrate to groundwater, enter surface water through interaction with surface runoff, or migrate through subsurface flow into surface water bodies from their application onto open space areas and transport through stormwater runoff or irrigation. Cleaning solvents and other chemicals that are applied outside can enter stormwater runoff due to the presence of impervious areas. Urban debris tends to accumulate in drainage channels by deposition from wind or people. Parking lots are known to develop layers of petroleum products from leaking cars as well as metal compounds from brakes. These products and metals can easily enter surface runoff and 4 - 164 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update be moved off site due to the impervious nature of the parking lots. Nonpoint-source pollution has by nature a cumulative negative impact on water quality in receiving waters in urban areas. Widespread implementation of several positive measures, however, can have an equally beneficial impact on the quality of those waters. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 7.2-G-1 Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. 7.2-G-2 Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination. 7.2-G-3 Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances within the city. 7.2-I-1 Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality. 7.2-I-2 Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in STOPP as needed. 7.2-I-3 Prepare and disseminate information, including a page on the City's web-site, about the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe alternative measures, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for home and garden use. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.12-b Future development could induce construction-related erosion and sedimentation. Construction of proposed facilities could result in increased erosion and sedimentation, with subsequent impacts to water quality and/or storm drain capacity during construction. Additionally, release of fuels or other hazardous materials associated with construction equipment could reduce water quality. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan Policies 7.2-I-1 and 7.2-I-2 listed under Impact 4.12-a. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. 4 - 165 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update RESIDUAL IMPACTS There will be no residual impacts associated with these impacts and no further mitigation is required. 4 - 166 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.13 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for biological resources is contained in Chapter 9: Environmental Resources of the Existing Conditions Report. In the Report, biological resources is divided into five sections: vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, special status species, habitat conservation plans, and wetlands. Biological Resources Despite a century of urban development and bay fill, South San Francisco supports remnant areas of high biological value including San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill, wetlands and Bay communities, and scattered grasslands and scrub vegetation. Many of these areas are protected under regional, state and federal legislation. However, future development is likely to continue to incrementally deplete the remaining biological resources. Vegetation and Wildlife South San Francisco's vegetative communities include annual grasslands, seasonal wetlands, fresh and saltwater marshes, and mud flats and open water, as well as disturbed grasslands and significant stands of trees, as shown in Figure 4.13-1. The historic shoreline and marshland are shown in Figure 4.13-2. Much of the vegetative area is landscaped. The communities support habitat for a wide range of animal species, including several species under federal and state protection. The best-known of these "special status species" are the threatened and endangered butterflies on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill, including the Mission Blue, Calippe Silverspot, San Bruno Elfin and Bay Checkerspot butterflies. San Bruno Mountain supports many threatened or endangered plant species, and the city's salt marshes provide foraging habitat for birds. Primary threats to vegetative communities in the city include: • Further intrusion of urban development into wildlife habitat areas; • Non-native vegetation originally introduced as landscaping, such as French broom, eucalyptus, pampas grass, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress8, which currently threaten habitat for threatened and endangered plant and animal species within the city; and • Toxic contaminants from commercial/industrial facilities that could result in substantial risks to sensitive waters and nearshore communities of the Bay. " Monterey pine and Monterey cypress are native to the Monterey peninsula. Although considered native plants of California these trees are not naturally occurring within within South San Francisco and are considered non-native to the region. 4 - 167 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4 - 168 G ~~ n ~ ,~ s ': .~, ° ~ ~ o~~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~ `_~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ y y ~. ~. ~. ~ On ~ y ~ ~'h ~ ~ ~ y ~ N y (n fD ~ ~ (D L- H i~ .~r . a. a y ~ 7~ a. ., 0 G ~~ ~ ~ L h ~ ~ a ~" ~ p ~ .7` ~. ~ ~xi ~D ~ ~ ' ti ~ ice,. / ~ 1 ro ..; ~' d 0 0 ~~ ~:= ; D /_ 1~ ,,_-__ ~':: l~/, ~~~~ ~,. i Ii a ~ \ \~ 3~ N o \ \\\ a N 0 i~I~. 1~~~! ~~- i z ' I a M x b b ~ b z At I b > O '-1 ~ b O~ .O. y 2 ~" I n h O . 00 °u~ r~ ~+~. ,, ~. r, O O O /~• ~~ O ~ O \ ~ Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Habitat Conservation Plans The city contains two areas specifically set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species: San Bruno Mountain9 (the southern base of which is within the city limits) and the portion of Sign Hill currently classified as a city park, as shown in Figure 4.9- 1. These areas are subject to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) prepared under Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act, which provides a regulatory mechanism for private interests and non-federal government agencies to lawfully "take" federally listed species under carefully prescribed circumstances. Ideally, HCPs allows for conservation of federally listed species and biological diversity and protection of the economic interests of landowners. Figure 4.13-3 shows sensitive habitats in South San Francisco. Table 4.13- I Special Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Within the City of South San Francisco Common Name Scien~c Name Stows (a) (Fed/CA/GNPs) Occurrence Data Mammals Harbor seal Phoca vitulina FP/ - Harbor seals are common to Bay and nearshore environment Salt marsh Reithrodonryomys FENCE Although marshes provide habitat, no harvest mouse raviventris known populations occur in the City. Birds Great blue heron Ardea herodias -NSA Local salt marshes provide foraging habitat Short-eared owl Asio flammeus -NSA Local salt marshes provide foraging habitat Marsh hawk Circus cyaneus Local salt marshes provide limited habitat Salt marsh Geothlypis trichas FSS/CSC Local marshes provide foraging habitat common sinuosa yel lowth root California black Laterallus - /CP Salt marshes on the eastern fringe of the rail jamaicensis City provide only limited habitat cowrniculus ' The San Bruno Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), adopted in 1982, was the first HCP ever prepared in California. During the late 1970's> USFWS designated three butterly species that occur on San Bruno Moutain as threatnened or endangered: Mission blue butterfly, calippe silverspot butterfly, and San Bruno elfin butterfly. Increasing development pressure on the mountian and the foresight of City and regional planners led to the preparation of the HCP in coordination with USFWS. 4 - 173 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.13- I Special Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Within the City of South San Francisco Status (a) Common Name Scientific Name (Fed/CA/GNPs) Occurrence Data California brown Pelecanus FENCE California brown pelican is a seasonal pelican occidentalis visitor to the region. tali fornicus California clapper Rallus longirostris FE/CE Salt marshes on the eastern fringe of the rail obsoletus Ciry provide only limited habitat for rails. Reptiles San Francisco Thamnophis sirtalis FE/CE The closest reported population is located garter snake tetrotoenia east of US I O I, south of the City. Amphibians California red- Rona aurora FT/CSC The Ciry's wetlands provide only limited legged frog draytoni habitat No occurrences of red-legged frog have been reported from the City. Invertebrates San Bruno elfin Callophrys mossi FE/ - butterfly bayensis Bay checkerspot Euphydryas editha FT/ - butterfly 6ayensis Mission blue Icaricia incarioides FE/ - buttertly missionensis San Bruno elfin Incisalio mossii FE/ - butterfly 6ayensis San Francisco Grapholitha -NSA tree lupine moth edwardsiana Calippe silverspotSpeyeria callippe FE/ - butterfly callippe California brackishwater snail Tryonia imitator -NSA Plants Coast rock cress Arabis - / - /List 3 blepharophylla San Bruno Arctostaphylos - /CE/List I B Mountain imbricate manzanita Associated with coastal scrub vegetation on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill. Associated with serpentine grasslands on San Bruno Mountain. Associated with coastal scrub vegetation on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill. Associated with coastal scrub and grassland on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill. Associated with coastal scrub vegetation on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill. Associated with coastal scrub vegetation on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill. Most adulu found on east-facing slopes; males congregate on hilltops in search of females. This snail may be present in brackish sloughs on the eastern fringe of the City. This cress occurs on San Bruno Mountain. This species is known from San Bruno Mountain. 4 - 174 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.13- I Special Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Within the City of South San Francisco Slaws (a) Common Name Scienti f c Name (Fed/CA/GNPs) Occurrence Data Montana Arctostaphylos - /CT/List I B This species is known from San Bruno manzanita montaraensis Mountain. Pacific manzan ita Arctostaphylos FSS/CE/List I B This species is known from San Bruno pac~co Mountain. Prostrate Arctostophylos uva- - / - / - This species is known from San Bruno bearberry ursi Mountain. manzanita Point Reyes Blennosperma blennosperma parum var. rovuswm Point Reyes Cordylanthus bird's-beak mariiimus ssp. palustris San Francisco Bay Chorizanthe spineflower cuspidate var. cuspidate (unique m San Mateo County) FE/CR/List I B This species is known from San Bruno Mountain. FSS/ - /List I B Salt marshes on the City's eastern fringe provide limited habitat for this species. FSS/ - /List I B This species is known from San Bruno Mountain. San Francisco Erysimum - /CE/List 3 This wallflower occurs on San Bruno wallflower franciscanum var. Mountain. franciscanum San Francisco Grindelia hirsuwla FSS/ - /List I B This species is known from San Bruno gumplant var. maritime Mountain. Marsh gumplant Grindelia humulis - / - /List 3 This species is likely to occur within salt marshes on the City's eastern fringe. Diablo rock rose Helianthea - / - /List 2 This species is known from San Bruno castenea Mountain. San Francisco lessingia FE/CE/List I B This species is known from San Bruno lessingia germanorum Mountain. White-rayed Pentachaeta FE/CE/List I B This species is known from San Bruno pentachaeta bellidiflora Mountain. San Francisco Silene verecunda FSS/ - /List I B This species is known from San Bruno Campion ssp. verecunda Mountain. San Francisco Triphysaria FSS/ - /List I B This species is known from San Bruno owl's clover floribunda Mountain. Dune tansy Tanacewm - / - /List 2 This species is known from San Bruno camphorawm Mountain. 4 - 175 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Table 4.13- I Special Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Within the City of South San Francisco Status (a) Common Name Scientific Name (Fed/CA/GNPs) Occurrence Data (a) Staves Codes: Federal Staves FE = Species in danger of extincton throughout all or signi ficani portion of its range. FT = Species rkely to become endangered within foreseeable fuwre throughout all or significant portion of its range. FSS = Former category 2 candidates for listing as threatened or endangered. Now unof dally considered federal sensitive species. fP = Fully Protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act Califomia State Staves CE = State listed as endangered. Species whose continued existence in California is jeopardized. CT = State listed as threatened. Species, ahhough not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. CR = State listed as rare. Plant species, ahhough not presently threatened with extinction, may become endangered in the foreseeable future CSC = California species of speaal concern. This is a management designation used to track animal species with declining breeding populatiorn in California. CP = Fully Protected by the State of California under Sections 3511 and 4700 of the Fish and Game Code SA = Considered a Spedal Animal by the California Deparunerrc of Fish and Game. Source: CNDDB, 1997; CNPS 1995 Regulatory Framework Regulatory authority over biological resources within the city is shared amon agencies. The City itself can protect biological resources through its land development policies, particularly in areas not currently protected under other federal legislation. The City can also actively restore degraded habitat areas. g various use and state or 4 - 176 0 ~, 5. 0 a N O n w' ~~` ~~~ .~, ~~ '° ~" a 9 ~ v, w ~ y [~+• fD A 'C7 0• A~ rM ~D P1 0 ~nv( O / 1 s`","I i ~o( ~` n 0 0 0 -~~° ~ ~\ ~, ~> o 3 r N m 0 ~~ ~' z ~' O `1 x I ~ b > , a U O ~ ~S' ~y ~ ~~\ ~,.. ~ 0'Q ~ ~` ~ ~ ~` r / ~. ~ ' ~ ~ `, ,z i ~; ~ ,,~, ~~ ,, ,~ ~_ _. ,, <~ ~~ ~~ ~ :~ ' A n ~ ~-____ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ,,~ ~ w I ~ ,~ 1 i ~ ;: ro m Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Substantially affect sensitive habitats and special status plant and animal species. • Introduce non-native invasive plant species. • Substantially reduce or degrade of common habitats and common wildlife species. CEQA Section 15380 further provides that a plant or animal species maybe treated as "rare or endangered" even if not on one of the official lists if it meets the criteria set forth in Section 15380(b) (if, for example, it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.13-a Proposed General Plan Update could effect sensitive habitats and special status plant and animal species. Future development within the City has the potential to directly or indirectly effect sensitive habitats (for example, Bay saltmarshes) and special status plant and animal species (for example, Mission blue butterfly) that are known to occur within the City or have potential to occur within the City. Direct impacts can include mortality of resident species and habitat loss and degradation. Mortality would include road kills and destruction of nests of species such as California clapper rail (if present) during both construction and operational phases of any proposed development. Habitat degradation associated with temporary construction- related disturbances may include displacement of sensitive wildlife due to construction noise and dust. In addition, small-sized wildlife populations could be eliminated due to habitat modification. These construction- and operational-related disturbances to sensitive habitats and sensitive plant and animal species would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 7.1-G-1 Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare. 7.1-G-2 Protect and where reasonable and feasible restore saltmarshes and wetlands. 7.1-I-1 Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or federal list for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological resources 4 - 179 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive habitat, as depicted in Figure 7-2: Ecologically Sensitive Habitats. (Figure 4.13-3 of the DEIR). 7.1-I-4 Require development on the wetlands delineated in figure 7-2 to complete assessments of biological resources. 7.1-I-5 Work with private, non-profit conservation, and public groups to secure funding for wetland and marsh protection and restoration projects. The Draft General Plan Policies for Ecologically Sensitive Lands are depicted in Figure 4.13-4. The Special Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals are shown in Figure 4.13-5. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. 4 - 180 ~ rt M ~ ~~ ~ ~~~< S. ~ ~ . . n vN VF-+ fD V V r-+ i--~ y Hy ~) n ~ ~ p,' W N ~°, v R° ~-+ V r-+ r-+ ~ i ~ ~.n ~i W V i--~ l~ 0 b w ~~ ~a D _ ~ ~ ..a d~ 1~ /~ o ~~~ o 3 ~ t ~~ . C7 0 0 0 I: i'. ~~ N o \ .~ N ie O ~, ro w w 0 G n S ., ~ ~ 0 y ~ N f1 ~-. ~ fD n ^~ y ~~ ~ o ~ p- o ° ~ o y ~• ~"~ ~• ~ dQ 0 1~~+ 0 H ~ ~. O Q+ e-h ~M r (~ ~~~CC!! rte Q+ p6'i, i r i~f ~ `i l '' ~~r r~ 1 17 ~ ~ y ~ r 0 O O :/•~ O \ 3 r N m N I 1'~E ~- O ~, ~:. . \., k~.., ~ r:, 7 ~ \ ~ z Y z 9~~b ~~ ~ < ~ r./yT' ~ a 3 ~ O _ t ~ ~ o ~ b z ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~'~ ~ ',:# y ~ , ~ O ~ ~ "~ ~ f ~ z ~r ~~~ ~ '' ~ ~ m m -- L *~ , ,~, ~.,~~,. ~ ~ , < ~ ~ ~~:~ I ' ~f ~ ~~ O ~ : ~~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` `- ~ `~ a :~ ~ ~ ~ f ,~i fD ~ ~ ~ :. , ~ ~, t ~ ~ a. z O ~ ' «` , " ~. ~ I ~~ 1 ~ 1 P~ ~ A Cq ~ cn • ~ ~ , co :L :, ~` ~'~ I ~ ~ ~ ,n a. N ~ W O `\ \ N Vf ~ I ~.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 \ t~ ~~ -- ~, a~.~, ~. ` \` I .<, ~' I .c ~ , 2 t 1`~ ~~, I :,1 ~` 1 i 1 ,` I I Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Impact 4.13-b Future development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in the introduction of non-native invasive plant species. Existing and future development within the City has the potential to introduce or promote the spread of non-native plant species. The spread of invasive non-native plants throughout California has had a dramatic effect on the natural landscape. Several species and communities (for example, native grasslands, Mission blue butterfly habitat) are threatened by the spread of invasive non-native plants such as French boom, eucalyptus, and pampas grass. The introduction or promotion of non-native species to the site or region would be a significant impact. In addition, construction equipment, vehicles, earth materials, and straw bales may cause the inadvertent introduction or spread of non-native species. These effects would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 7.1-I-2 As part of the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan update, institute an ongoing program to remove invasive plant species from ecologically sensitive areas, including Sign Hill Park, Colma Creek linear Park, Bayfront Linear Park, and other city-owned open space, as depicted in Figure 7-1. 7.1-I-3 As part of development approvals on sites that include ecologically sensitive habitat designated in Figure 7-2, require institution of an on-going program to remove and prevent the re-establishment of the invasive species and restore the native species. Table 4.13-2 presents a list of non-native invasive plant species that should be evaluated. Table 4.13-2 4 - 185 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Non-Native Invasive Plant Species that Should be Evaluated in Assessments of Biological Resources Acacia (Acacia spp.) Mattress vine (Muelenbeckia complexa) Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauco) Giant reed (Arundo donax) Fountain grass (Pennisewm setaceum) Bamboo (Bambusa spp., et a~ Pyracantha (Pyracantha angustifolia) Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) Castor bean (Ricinus communis) Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosa) Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) French broom (Cytisus monspessulanus) German ivy (Senecio mikianoides) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoporius) Spanish broom (Sparteum junceum) Blue gum (Eucolypws globulus) Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) English ivy (Hedera helix) Gorse (Ulex europoeus) Ice plant (Mesembryanthemum chilensis) Periwinkle (Vinca mojor)Purple fountain grass Tall fescue (Feswco arundinaceo) (Pennisetum setaceum) Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.13-c Future development under the proposed General Plan Update could result in the reduction or degradation of common habitats and common wildlife species. Future development within the City may result in the direct removal of non-native grassland habitat that is common in the region and throughout most of the State. Direct impacts to common wildlife species include both mortality of resident species and habitat loss and degradation. Mortality would include road kills and destruction of nests of species such as western meadowlarks during both construction and operational phases of any proposed development. Habitat degradation associated with temporary construction-related disturbances may include displacement of animals due to construction noise and dust. In addition, small-sized wildlife populations could be eliminated due to habitat modification. These construction- and operational-related disturbances to common species would be considered adverse but not significant. Mitigation Measures Proposed b7' the Draft General Plan Policies 7.1-G- and 7.1-G-21isted under impact 4.13-a. 4 - 186 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update RESIDUAL IMPACTS No residual impacts have been identified. 4 - 187 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SUMMARY The environmental setting for cultural resources is contained in Chapter 11: Historic and Cultural Resources of the Existing Conditions Report. A summary of Chapter 11 is presented below. Cultural Resources South San Francisco's history is notable for the close relationship of industrial and community growth. The development of a residential town to support new industrial plants was a calculated strategy of local industrialists. In turn, success of the city's industries gave South San Francisco an important role in the region. South San Francisco's identity as "The Industrial City" is an historically appropriate designation. Historic and cultural resources in South San Francisco are protected through the process of local designation and subsequent oversight by the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition to Sign Hill, the City's only national historic landmark, South San Francisco's designated resources include several residential and commercial buildings in the Downtown area (Figure 4.14-1). 4 - 188 SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN / ~~~~~ -w COUNTY PARK o u4 ~n Designated Historic Site nip Figure 4.14- I Designated Historic Resources Source: South San Francisco Historic Resources Inventory Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Genera! Plan Update Evidence of South San Francisco's earliest residents can also be found in the city, in various Native American shell mounds and middens. There are several known archaeological sites in areas slated for growth; proper measures for their protection will continue to occur under the provisions of the CEQA. IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study . • Have a significant effect on archaeological resources and whether such resources are "unique" under the law. A "unique" archaeological resource is defined as follows (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(8)): "An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: • contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; • has a special and particular quality, such as oldest of its type or best available example of its type; and, • is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person." According to CEQA Guidelines, an important archaeological resource is one that "is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American history or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory; can provide scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research questions; has a special or particular quality, such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods" (Appendix K; CEQA Guidelines) For purposes of this EIR, a significant effect would occur if the integrity of a cultural resource that is eligible for listing on any one of the following lists would be compromised through demolition or alteration: National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, California Inventory of Historical Resources, or Points of Historical Interest. 4 - 190 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Drof't Environmental Impoct Report for South San Francisco General Plan Updote Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.14-a Future development in the City has the potential to adversely affect special status historic resources. South San Francisco's only national historic landmark-Sign Hill-is also its best-known feature. Sign Hill has proclaimed the City's identity since 1891 when the J. Dunn Real Estate Company, South San Francisco's first realtor, initially installed the sign. The conservation of this unique history is the objective of historic and cultural preservation in South San Francisco. The Historic Preservation Commission protects these resources through the process of local designation and subsequent oversight. The landmark and 27 acres of land surrounding the sign are owned by the City and maintained as open space parkland. The proposed land use designation for this site is Park and Recreation. Full implementation of the City's General Plan would reduce the impact to the Sign Hill historic landmark to less than significant levels. In addition to Sign Hill, designated historic resources in South San Francisco include several residential and commercial buildings in the Downtown area. The City's Municipal Code, and State and federal law, protects these local, State, and national historic resources from alteration and demolition. The City has several historic homes and commercial buildings. Most are located along Grand Avenue near the Civic Center, and around the intersection of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. In addition, many of the structures in the Downtown area along Grand, Linden, Baden, and Miller avenues were identified as potential historic resources in a comprehensive survey completed in 1986. These buildings are representative of an architectural period, are of local historic prominence, or are well-restored examples of vernacular architecture. Regardless of their role, these buildings contribute to the overall scale and character of the area, and are included on the City's list of potential historic resources, giving the Historic Preservation Commission an opportunity to review all requests for demolition permits in the area. Alteration of these buildings could significantly (either singularly or cumulatively) affect these potential historic resources. Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco's history, no industrial buildings or sites are currently designated historic resources. The lack of designated industrial buildings puts the community in danger of losing these reminders of its past as new industrial and commercial uses expand. However, the need to preserve the City's history must be balanced with the economic considerations of industrial operations. 4- 191 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Updote Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 7.5-G-1 Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco's identity and quality of life. 7.5-G-2 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. 7.5-I-1 Explore the feasibility of establishing a Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District, as designated in figure 7-3 of the General Plan to promote the revitalization and redevelopment of the area. Policy 7.5-I-1 directs the City to explore the feasibility of establishing a Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District. Such a district would likely extend along Grand Avenue from Airport Boulevard to Maple Street, just below City Hall and could include Linden Avenue to a distance of one block from Grand Avenue. The district would include late 19th and early-mid 20th century one-, two-, and three-story commercial buildings, with a pattern of large or architecturally prominent buildings at street corners. Several structures have residential apartments above the street level. Formal designation of the Historical District would be an important economic development initiative in generating interest and support for efforts to revitalize the commercial area. 7.5-I-2 Institute downtown urban design guidelines, and require a design review of developments in the proposed Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District to ensure that the height, massing, and design of buildings furthers Downtown's character (see also Policies 3.1-I-4 and 3.1-I-5). 7.5-I-3 Explore mechanisms to incorporate South San Francisco's industrial heritage in historic and cultural preservation. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.14-b Future development in the City has the potential to disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community, ethnic, or social group. Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native American village sites and shell mounds scattered around the city. Known resources include: 4 - 192 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update A Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA-299) located within the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area that contains household items, projectile points, dietary debris, and human burials. A large shell mound (CA-SMA-40) and two small shell middens (CA-SMA-40 and CA-SMA-234) near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain in the Terrabay Planning Area. The shell mound is considered a significant archaeological resource. South San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of additional prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. While the city is essentially built out, archaeological surveys may be appropriate as part of large project redevelopment activities. Development or redevelopment in the aforementioned locations could significantly affect these archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures Proposed by the Draft General Plan 7.5-I-4 Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the city by requiring a records review for any development proposed areas of known resources. South San Francisco's known archaeological resources are located within areas undergoing development: Terrabay and the El Camino corridor. The East of 101 area, which is a likely location for new development, has the potential to contain additional resources due to the extensive marshlands that existed prior to landfill activities. 7.5-I-5 In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered. CEQA requires the evaluation of any archaeological resource on the site of a development project. State law also protects these resources. City involvement in the identification, mitigation, and monitoring of project impacts on these resources will ensure the protection of South San Francisco's cultural heritage. Policies 7.5-G-land 7.5-G-21isted under impact 4.14-a. Additional Mitigation Measures Suggested No additional mitigation measures are required. RESIDUAL IMPACTS No residual impacts have been identified. 4 - 193 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 4.15 TELEPHONE, CABLE, NATURAL GAS, AND ELECTRICITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing telephone, cable, natural gas, and electricity infrastructure for South San Francisco are not discussed in the Existing Conditions Report. The following contains the environmental setting for telephone, cable, natural gas, and electricity services. Telephone Service Telephone service is provided to the City of South San Francisco by Pacific Bell. Pacific Bell is a State-wide franchised utility and will service all areas requiring telephone service in accordance to California Public Utility Commission rules and tariffs. Pacific Bell has facilities serving all areas east of the Bayshore Freeway, including aerial and underground lines along all streets and properties. Its major routes for serving this area are along Grand Avenue, Utah Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard, Airport Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. Cable Television Service Cable television service is provided by TCI Cable and RCN Corporation. TCI Cable has one site-on Starlight Avenue-that receives signal, which is then transmitted to the city's households. TCI is currently undergoing expansion of its system to meet increases in demand. The expansion was expected to be completed at the end of 1998.10 RCN Corporation was recently approved to operate in the city and is currenlty installing a new fiber opriv cable system (inccuding high speed telephone and Internet access). The system is expected to be completed by Fall 1999. Natural Gas and Electricity Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is the principal provider of natural gas and electricity to South San Francisco. Under deregulation, other companies may also provide natural gas and electricity in the City. Natural Gas PG&E owns and operates three gas transmission lines within South San Francisco. These facilities are within easements, rights-of--way, or fee property (land owned by PG&E). The transmission lines are roughly located along alignments that parallel US 101, Junipero Serra '° Greg Shocker, TCI Cable, personal communication, August 21, 1998. 4 - 194 Chapter 4: Environmentol Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Boulevard, and Mission Road. Gas distribution facilities include distribution mains operating at pressures of up to 50 pressure per square inch gauge (psig).11 PG&E has tapped four district regulator stations from the transmission line located along US 101, which are used to drop the pressure from the transmission lines to the distribution systems. These stations have a normal operating pressure of 50 psig.12 Electricity PG&E owns and operates 115 and 60 kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission lines, and a 230 kV underground electric transmission cable with city limits. Like PG&E's gas lines, these facilities are located within easements, rights-of--way, or fee property. Both overhead and underground transmission lines are located along US 101.13 Planned Improvements PG&E continuously plans for facility upgrades to serve new customers by monitoring system demands and projecting future growth. New facilities are planned and installed as necessary. New installation of off-site facilities such as conductors, transformers, and switches would be funded by the New Business Tariff in accordance with the California Public Utilities Commission. IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the South San Francisco General Plan Update if it would result in one or more of the following: • Development that cannot be served with telephone, cable, natural gas, or electricity. • Energy demands in excess of available supply. Analysis of Impacts Impact 4.15-a Future development may not be served with telephone, cable, natural gas, or electricity service "Gale Siu, Dueaor of Engineering and Planning, PG8rE, written communication, May 11, 1998. '=Draft Environmental Impact Report, East of 101 Area Plan, January 1994. "Gale Siu, Director of Engineering and Planning, PG&E, written communication, May 11, 1998. 4 - 195 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Utilities are expanded to new development by appropriate agencies. Since existing streets are equipped with aerial or underground utility lines, the expansion of these lines to the few vacant lots available for development would be minimal. The additional demand for utility service would be accommodated by the utility providers. Because the providers of telephone, cable, natural gas, and electricity service are private entities that normally expand service to new development, this impact requires no mitigation and is reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan No mitigation measures are required for impact 4.15-a. Impact 4.15-b Increased energy demand under the proposed General Plan Update may exceed availability. Since PG&E foresees no difficulty in meeting the energy demands providing service to new development, this would be a less than significant impact. In addition, several additional companies may provide energy under deregulation. Mitigation Measures Proposed Under the General Plan None required. Residual Impacts There will be no residual impacts associated with these impacts and no further mitigation is required. 4 - 196 Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 5. Impact Overview 5.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS According to CEQA Guidelines 15126(b), the DEIR must discuss any significant environ- mental impacts that cannot be avoided under full implementation of the proposed project. Also, the DEIR must discuss why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding such im- pacts. The mitigation measures described in Chapter 4, which include policies in the pro- posed General Plan, would avoid or eliminate most significant impacts. However, significant unavoidable impacts would be expected in the areas of transportation and air quality. Transportation. Buildout of the proposed project (including approved development) would result in 131,500 additional daily trips from new development. According to Impact 4.3-a, additional trips resulting from General Plan buildout would contribute to congestion along US 101, which would decline in LOS from D to F, below the stan- dard established in the County Congestion Management Program. In addition, two local roadway segments are projected to exceed their capacities with buildout under the maximum development allowed under the General Plan Update (Table 4.3-5). These include portions of Westborough Boulevard (West of W. Orange Ave) and Oyster Point Boulevard (US 101 to Gateway Blvd). Air Quality. Additional trips resulting from the General Plan would contribute to the emission of harmful pollutants (carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone pre- cusors) within and outside the Planning Area. While the proposed General Plan Up- date would be consistent with many aspects of the regional Clean Air Plan, including population assumptions and TCMs, it would be inconsistent with the transportation performance standard that links the rate of increase in VMT with the rate of increase in population -the estimated rate of increase in VMT associated with future devel- opment in South San Francisco would exceed the rate of increase in population. 5-I Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Genera! Plon Update 5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The DEIR must also examine irreversible changes to the environment. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines requires the DEIR to consider whether "uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large com- mitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(c)). "Nonrenewable resources" refer to the physical features of the natural en- vironment, such as land, air, waterways, etc. OPEN SPACE Development of vacant infill sites throughout the city would result in the conversion of some vacant land to urban uses. The development of these sites would not constitute the loss of open space, because most sites are already surrounded by structures and other development within the existing urban form. Moreover, vacant infill sites have already been slated for de- velopment under the current General Plan (No Project Alternative). Two projects that have current development approvals-Terrabay and El Rancho-would result in the conversion of open space to urban uses. These two projects are located on the southern slopes of San Bruno, beyond the city's existing urban edge. However, since these projects have been approved and are currently being developed, they are not an impact of the proposed General Plan Update. The General Plan Update would help preserve significant ar- eas of open space throughout the city, such as the shoreline and the northern side of Sign Hill. AIR QUALITY The proposed project would result in significant irreversible impacts on air quality. Long- term use of automobiles throughout the Bay Area can lead to the accumulation of carbon monoxide (CO) in the atmosphere, a major contributing factor to global warming. Increases in trip-making and traffic resulting from the General Plan Update would potentially contrib- ute to long-term degradation of air quality and atmospheric conditions in the Bay Area, other parts of California, and the western United States. Ground-level air pollution, while significant, is not an irreversible impact. Ground-level air pollution in the South San Francisco are (primarily CO and ozone) that result from automo- bile emissions can be reduced through improvements in fuel efficiency and the shift from in- ternal combustion to electric engines. In addition, roadway improvements that increase roadway capacity and reduce overall congestion can help reduce street-level air pollution, be- cause cars stuck in traffic (with intermittent accelerations and decelerations) emit more pol- lutants than cars travelling in free-flow conditions. 5-2 Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update WATER CONSUMPTION New development under the auspices of the proposed project would also result in additional consumption of water. Water demand projections for the city by the California Water Service Company (CWSC) for the year 2020 range from 5.9 to 9.1 million gallons per day (MGD). While the CWSC has an adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand, buildout of the proposed General Plan would result in increased water consumption. A more detailed discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed project on water consumption is found in Section 4.6, particularly under Impact 4.6-a. ENERGY SOURCES New development would also result in the commitment of existing and planned sources of energy, which would be necessary for daily use of new buildings. Both residential and non- residential development use electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products for power, light- ing, heating, and other indoor and outdoor services. Use of this energy for new development would result in increased use of energy, which may or may not be from renewable sources. The increased number of trips to and from new development would also result in the com- mitment of additional energy sources. Automobiles consume gasoline and other petroleum products, transit trips via electrified rail routes, such as BART and the Airport Light Rail Sys- tem (ALRS), rely on electric energy from a variety of sources. Since new development relies on both automobiles and transit for accessibility, the project would result in increased energy consumption for transportation. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS Significant irreversible environmental changes could also occur in the course of construction of many development projects consistent with the General Plan. These projects must be as- sessed through a detailed project-level environmental review, in accordance with CEQA and procedures already established in the South San Francisco Municipal Code. They would result in consumption of building materials, natural gas, electricity, water, and petroleum products. Due to the non-renewable or slowly renewable nature of these resources, this represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. 5-3 Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Froncisco General Plan Update 5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The DEIR must examine the potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines require that the DEIR "discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of addi- tional housing, either directly or indirectly (CEQA Guidelines, 15126(f)). This analysis must also consider the removal of obstacles to population growth, such as improvements in re- gional transportation systems. Growth-inducing impacts over an extended time period are difficult to assess with precision, because future economic and population trends would be influenced by unforeseeable events, such as natural disasters, business and development rycles, and overall economic trends. Moreover, long-term changes in economic and population growth are often regional in scope; they are not influenced solely by changes or policies in South San Francisco. Also, eco- nomic trends are influenced by economic conditions throughout the state and country, as well as around the world. Despite these limitations on the analysis, it is still possible to assess the general potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project. INCREASE IN REGIONAL HOUSING DEMAND The General Plan Update would have long-term growth-inducing impacts on the region overall, because it would result in a greater increase in jobs over population and would therefore increase housing demand throughout the region. Job Growth and Jobs/Employed Residents Balance Rapid economic growth during the current business rycle is resulting in the conversion of older manufacturing and other industrial uses to more intensive commercial uses throughout the Bay Area. South San Francisco is particularly subject to this regional transformation, since it is optimally located adjacent to SFIA, along US 101 and I-280, and between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The General Plan Update accommodates these pressures for regional employment growth resulting in approximately 11.9 million square feet of new non-residential development. Based on the buildout of new non-residential development, employment would increase by approximately 32,300. This estimate of the increase in building space is substantially lower than buildout estimates under the current General Plan (No Project Alternative); estimates at the time the East of 101 Area Plan was adopted in 1994 indicated an increase of 22.7 million square feet of new non-residential space in the East of 101 area alone. Approximately 2,800 housing units would be added in South San Francisco under the pro- posed project, increasing population by about 8,200 persons. The resulting ratio of jobs to 5-4 Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update employed residents at buildout would be approximately 2.2, compared to a ratio of approxi- mately 1.5 in 1995. South San Francisco is largely built-out, and all projects would be infill in nature. The esti- mated increase in population and employment could be much lower than estimated, de- pending on which projects are built and what existing uses are replaced. While an exact time period for accomplishment of buildout is neither specified nor anticipated by the proposed General Plan, if this state were reached in 20 years, the average annual population growth rate would be 0.6 percent. If growth were to occur at a slower pace, buildout would take longer than 20 years. Regional Housing Demand As a result of new job growth, housing demand would increase not only in South San Fran- cisco, but also in other cities that lie within commuting distance of the city. This would in- clude other parts of San Mateo County, San Francisco and perhaps some other parts of the region. In order to provide housing opportunities for new workers and fulfill fair share housing re- quirements, the General Plan Update identifies additional residential sites within the city. Some existing residential sites are targeted for intensification, and some vacant sites and sites dedicated to other non-residential uses are identified for potential conversion to residential uses. However, residential development is inappropriate in much of the city, as a result of noise impacts and safety hazards from SFIA aircraft. Much of the city is also subject to high levels of traffic noise from US 101, I-280, and El Camino Real. Thus, the potential for new housing development is limited is large areas of the city. In addition, the General Plan calls for examining residential development in areas currently within the aircraft-related 65 CNEL contour, were the contour to shift in the future (Policy 2-I-17). The expected development of 2,800 housing units under the General Plan Update will help the City fulfill its fair share housing requirements. INCREASED JOBS NEAR NORTH COUNTY RESIDENTS While the City itself will experience a greater disparity between the number of jobs and em- ployed residents and new job growth will exacerbate regional demands for housing, employ- ment growth under the General Plan Update will have a beneficial effect upon the overall jobs/employed residents balance in Northern San Mateo County as a whole. Cities in North- ern San Mateo County are expected to have ajobs/employed residents balance of approxi- ' Association of Bay Area Governments, Projectioru '98 (December 1997). 5-5 Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental lmpoct Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Updote mately 0.95 in 2000.2 Increased employment in South San Francisco will help create a better balance of jobs and employed residents in the northern part of the County. As a result, residents living in the northern part of the County will have greater opportunities to live in closer proximity to their work. An improved jobs/employed residents balance can contribute to relieving some of the traffic congestion during commute periods. :Includes the cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, and South San Francisco, as well as employ- ment at San Francisco International Airport. Jobs/employed residents ratio is based on projections for the year 2000, which project an estimated 140,590 jobs and 147,500 employed residents.. (Association of Bay Area Governmenu, Projections 98, December 1997.) 5-6 Chapter S: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update 5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA requires that the Draft EIR examine cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section 15130(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact "consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." The analysis of cumulative impacts need not provide the level of detail required of the analysis of impacts from the project itself, but shall "reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence" (Section 15130(b)). In order to assess cumulative impacts, the DEIR must analyze either "a list of past, present, and probably future projects" or "a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document." Since these are several major projects underway in the South San Francisco area, this analysis examines relevant projects rather than projections. The projects analyzed are program-level in nature, like the General Plan update itself. Major proj- ects include: • San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) expansion, which will include a doubling of passenger traffic over the next ten years; • BART extension from Colma to SFIA, with stations in South San Francisco and neighboring San Bruno; and • Airport Rail Transit System construction from SFIA north along US 101 to the em- ployee parking lot on Airport Boulevard. • Additional planning efforts currently underway in areas surrounding the City include: • San Bruno Redevelopment Plan, which covers most of the eastern half of the city, roughly between El Camino Real and the City's eastern edge. San Bruno is currently in the midst of planning and environmental review for the Redevelopment Plan; and • San Bruno General Plan Update, which is tentatively scheduled to begin in late 1999. This analysis also refers to regional projects, where appropriate to provide a broader perspec- tive on the cumulative impacts. TRANSPORTATION Buildout of the General Plan Update, in combination with other relevant projects, would contribute to congestion along major roadways in the South San Francisco area. The ex- panded SFIA and continued growth in North San Mateo County would attract even more trips than now, many of which would be made by automobile via regional routes (for exam- ple, US 101, I-280, and El Camino Real). Since these routes run the entire length of the Pen- insula, they would also be affected by development outside the immediate South San Fran- cisco areas. S-7 Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update Traffic conditions along US 101 and I-280 will be influenced by development occurring throughout the Bay Area, not just development in the immediate South San Francisco area, and therefore, it is necessary to examine overall growth trends for the Peninsula and the entire Bay Area. As shown in Table 5.4-1, South San Francisco is expected to higher overall rates of job growth 1995-2020, relative to San Mateo County and the Bay Area. Also, the City will potentially rise in its share of County employment, from approximately 13 percent in 1995 to more than 16 percent in 2020, based on buildout estimates. Residential development would be expected to occur at a slightly higher rate than the County and San Francisco, but would not grow as fast as other parts of the Bay Area. The large relative increase in jobs in South San Francisco means that development under the auspices of the General Plan Update would make a large contribution to overall levels of traf- fic congestion in the area. The General Plan Update's contribution to cumulative traffic im- pacts would therefore be potentially significant. Table 5.4- I Population and Employment in South San Francisco and Surrounding Counties P ulation Embloyment 1995 2020 % Change 1995 2020 % Change South San Francisco 56,528' 67,400 19% 41,520 71,4002 72% San Mateo County 687,500 798,600 16% 318,350 431,290 35% San Francisco County 751,700 793,400 6% 534,610 679,650 27% Santa Clara County 1,599,100 1,930,700 21% 827,350 1,230,760 49% Bay Area 6,394,300 7,774,400 22% 3,028,290 4,391,940 45% Notes: ' ! 995 Department of Finance Number. 2 Based on buildout of development proposed under the General Plon Update. Source: County and Bay Area figures from: Assodation of Boy Area Governments, Projections '98 (December 1997 Sources for South San Francisco figures are noted in the footnotes. Transit improvements will help alleviate some traffic congestion in and around the city. Ma- jor transit improvements include: • BART extension. The four stations along the BART extension (South San Francisco, Tanforan, SFIA, and Millbrae) are expected to have a 2010 daily ridership of 68,600. The South San Francisco station is expected to have approximately 8,000 daily riders. 5-8 Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update • Caltrain. Approximately 1,000 passengers per day use the South San Francisco Cal- train station, and ridership levels are expected to increase, as the number of daily trains between San Francisco and San Jose increases from 66 to 114.3 • ART. The new Airport Rail Transit System (ART) will potentially help alleviate some freeway traffic bound for SFIA. While these transit improvements will provide alternatives to auto travel and help alleviate congestion, they would not be able to absorb the entire increase in trips that would result of new development under the General Plan and other adjacent projects. Moreover, the park- and-ride lots at the BART, Caltrain, and ALRS stations will generate new pockets of traffic congestion in the locations around the stations. AIR QUALITY Cumulative air quality impacts can be divided into microscale and regional impacts that affect the entire air basin. Microscale impacts of cumulative development consist primarily of car- bon monoxide (CO) emissions produced by motor vehicles at congested intersections. Re- gional impacts of cumulative development result from ozone precursors (NOX and ROC) and particulate matter (PM-10) emissions produced by motor vehicles and construction activities throughout the region. Both these impacts are discussed in this section. 'City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan: E~istingConditwns and Planninglssues (September 1997). 5-9 Chapter 5: Impact Overview Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 5.5 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Only one impact of the proposed project is found not to be significant. As stated in Impact 4.5-c, "the project would result in decreased industrial acreage in the city, causing an overall decrease in truck traffic and truck-related noise levels." This impact would have an overall beneficial effect on the city. 5-~0 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 6. Analysis of Alternatives CEQA mandates consideration and analysis of alternatives to the proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines, the range of alternatives "shall include those that could feasibly accom- plish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts" (Section 15126(d)(2)). The alternatives may result in new impacts that are do not result from project. The analysis must explain why the alternatives and its related mitigations would not be preferable to the proposed project. Case law suggests that the discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive, and that alterna- tives be subject to a construction of reasonableness. According to CEQA Guidelines, the im- pacts of the alternatives maybe discussed "in less detail than the significant effects of the proj- ect as proposed" (Section 15126(d)(3)). Also, the Guidelines permit analysis of alternatives at a less detailed level for General Plan and other program EIRs, compared to project EIRs. The Guidelines do not specify what would be an adequate level of detail. Detail information in this analysis is based on available information. For some impacts, quantified information is pre- sented; for others, only partial quantification was available. Five alternatives are considered: • No Future Development; • No Project (that is, no change to the existing General Plan); • Lindenville Emphasis; • East of 101 Emphasis; and • Transit Emphasis; The first alternative is a scenario of limited future development. Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by CEQA in all EIRs. The remaining three alternatives consider land use designations and transportation improvements in various different configurations in the Planning Area. An alternatives report focusing on the three "build" alternatives was published in April 1998, widely distributed, and presented at various community meetings. These alternatives present various strategies for responding to community needs and projected market demand for an assortment of land uses, which are summarized in Table 6.0-1. Because of limited availability of vacant land in the city, redevelopment and use intensification will be needed. Both the proposed project and the three "build" alternatives focus on strategies for redevelopment and intensification. Development summary resulting from all five alternatives and proposed proj- ect is shown later in this chapter in Table 6.6-1. 6-I Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 6- I Incremental Land Needs to 2020 Floor Space (square feet) Average FAR/Density Net Acres Gross Acres Multiplier Total Land Area Needed (acres) Residential Population Increase: 12,300 I I units 378 445 I 445 # of HHs (group gtrs = 3%, per net HH size = 3.02): 3,951 acre Housing Units (5% vacancy): 4, 159 Retail - - - - - One 50+ acre site for Power Center; 10 acres of Neighbor- hood Commercial; 10 acres of Business Park Office and R&D 4,000,000 0.25 367 430 2 864 Hotels 1,000,000 (2,000 rooms at 0.45 51 60 I.5 90 500 sq ft/room in addition to projects already approved) Industrial 1,050,000 0.25 96 113 I 96 Public 27,500 0.3 2 2 I 2 Schools - - - - - 30 Neighborhood 5 acres/1,000 new residents - 62 62 I 62 and Community Parks Total I ,660 6-2 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 6.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT Under the No Further Development Alternative, there would be no new development in South San Francisco beyond currently approved projects. Existing land uses (shown in Table 6.2-1 and Figure 4.1-1) and urban form would remain largely unchanged. As summarized in Table 6.6-1, approved projects include: • Residential development totaling about 1,150 housing units in the Paradise Val- ley/Terra Bay, Westborough, and El Camino planning subareas, all of which are lo- cated west of US 101; and • Commercial and industrial development in the planning subareas east of US 101, particularly Gateway, Oyster Point, and East of 101. Smaller-scale commercial devel- opment in the Downtown, Lindenville, El Camino, Paradise Valley/Terra Bay, and South Airport subareas. Total approved building area for commercial and industrial projects is about 3.3 million square feet. The major disadvantage of this alternative is its unfeasibility. Halting all development within South San Francisco is unrealistic, since laws protect private property rights and regional eco- nomic growth creates pressure for new development. In addition, this alternative would allow no additional housing development, preventing South San Francisco from meeting its fair share of housing requirements. All cities in the Bay Area are required to accommodate a "fair share" of regional housing and population growth, based on estimates currently being pre- pared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 6-3 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update 6.2 ALTERNATIVE B: NO PROJECT CEQA requires that one of the alternatives be a "No Project Alternative." In the absence of the proposed project, the existing General Plan would continue to guide the city's develop- ment. Full buildout of the existing General Plan would include both currently approved proj- ects, plus additional development permitted by the Plan in the future. As shown in Table 3.4-1, total buildout of the current General Plan would result in the devel- opment of about 1,780 additional housing units; however, since this number includes ap- proved projects, only another 790 units could potentially be built beyond what has already been approved. The 1994 East of 101 Area Plan, which guides development n that area, indi- cated adevelopment potential under the plan of approximately 22.7 million square feet of non-residential space. Additional infill non-residential development, not represented in Table 6.6-1, could be built in areas west of 101, particularly in downtown and along El Camino Real. While feasible, this alternative does not respond to the issues that created the need for the General Plan Update. The update was initiated in order to respond to changing demographic and economic circumstances, as well as regional transportation plans. In particular, expan- sion of San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) and the BART extension have created op- portunities and pressures for new development. 6-4 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Droft Environmental Impoci Report for South San Francisco Generol Plan Update 6.3 ALTERNATIVE C: LINDENVILLE EMPHASIS In the Lindenville Emphasis Alternative, new development would be focused in the Lin- denville area, south of downtown. This area, which emerged through piecemeal transition from residential to industrial use fairly late in the city's history, would be redeveloped as a mixed-use neighborhood. As shown on Figure 6.3-1, small commercial centers and parks would be dispersed throughout the neighborhood, and open space bands would be provided along Colma Creek and abandoned railroad rights-of--way. Higher-density residential devel- opment would be located along parks and other open spaces, and dispersed throughout the neighborhood. This alternative would result in more residential development than in any other alternative or the proposed project. The downtown street grid would be extended south of Colma Creek, and new streets, in both east-west and north-south directions, would be built to integrate the neighborhood with sur- rounding areas. Proposed streets would provide direct access from downtown to the San Bruno BART station, connections to El Camino Real, and to areas east of the Caltrain tracks and US 101. A significant amount of office development (approximately 3.7 million square feet) would be located within a walking distance of the San Bruno BART station, and a smaller amount of office development would be provided near the South San Francisco BART station area. New hotels would be located along US 101 and Airport Boulevard, and a regional commercial center (approximately 1 million square feet) would be located west of US 101 and north of I- 380. The eastern part of the east of 101 area would be reserved for a business park. Some ex- isting industrial and warehousing uses would be replaced by more intensive non-residential development. As shown in Table 6.6-1, a total 9.9 million square feet of new non-residential space would be built. Higher-density residential development would be encouraged north of downtown between Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard. More than 4,000 new residential units would be built. A neighborhood commercial center would be developed near the Linden-Hillside intersection to provide convenience shopping opportunities to neighborhoods in the north, such as Para- dise Valley and Terrabay. The northern part of Sign Hill would be preserved as open space, and linear parks would be developed along some abandoned railroad rights-of--way and over the underground BART line. Infrastructure Improvements Infrastructure improvements outlined in the alternative would include: • Anew US 101 interchange with a proposed Victory Avenue extension. • Railroad Avenue extension east to Grand Avenue. • A grid street system with connections to surrounding streets in the Lindenville area. 6-5 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update • Anew connection of Arroyo Drive and Oak Avenue across El Camino Real (assumed to be included as part of the BART extension project). • Magnolia Avenue connection to El Camino Real. 6-6 ~o ~> a~ ~ ~ ~ -- ; ~:y, ~. _ Z ,. ~; ~„ .;,;~ ~. J V a~ .~ c L N Q :~~ ,. M r. 7 e .~ z" b b C i~. 3 w o v ~, a' W ~ '~ y ~ 3 ~ a > o w,` ~~~~ a o H ~ .A ~ a °' °' m 5 m ~ v c .n ~ ~ F o w ~ O ~ a. ~ a ~ w ~B~D~C~ ~~ a" v ~ '' a ~ E ~ S 7 ~ V L. I V 3~ ~ ~ S o 3 ~, ~Bd~~ B8 ,.. Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Genera! Plan Update 6.4 ALTERNATIVE D: EAST OF I OI EMPHASIS In the East of 101 Emphasis Alternative, the area north of Grand Avenue would be reserved for high-technology and research-related businesses. New streets would be developed in con- junction with development to improve access and to create smaller blocks that are more in- scale with the proposed business center. A continuous open space frontage will be maintained along the Bay. A modest amount of mixed-use development (retail and residential) would be located near the South San Francisco BART station. Regional commercial development (approximately 0.5 million square feet) would be located east of US 101 and south of Utah. Hotel development would occur south of East Grand Avenue on both sides of Gateway Boulevard and on the west side of US 101. Approximately 6.2 million square feet of new non-residential space would be built, as shown in Table 6.6-1. Because of limited land availability, new residential development would occur at much higher intensities than in the other alternatives, and in areas with somewhat steep slopes, including the north face of Sign Hill. The unincorporated "island" on Alta Vista Drive in the Avalon area, and the Colma Creek corridor would all have Medium/High Density residential devel- opment. Despite these densities, the overall amount of residential development-approxi- mately 3,600 units-would fall short of the Lindenville Alternative. Infrastructure Improvements Infrastructure improvements in the alternative include: • New connection between Gateway Boulevard and Armour Avenue via a crossing of US 101 and the railroad tracks. • New east-west roadway south of East Grand Avenue extending eastward from Rail- road Avenue (also crossing US 101 and the railroad tracks). • New local roadway system in the east of 101 area reducing the lazge block sizes (to be constructed as part of individual developments). 6-9 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 6-10 4 ~i- O ~o ~' O ~ ~ c~ W 0 .~ cd L Q ' 'a 0 m, x ^ 8;R' 3 v .~ v oG b c v E a 0 v v A v ~ 3 a ~ d a > o I., III o ~ .~ a' °- ~' o ~ ~ x ,~ 0 p~ ~ c m a ;~~~R ~ ~ H Y ,o w i a a ~ w ~ ~oa~eo .:. i L 7 d .Q i ~ '~ ~ ~ Z °' a H ' ~ ~ o ~ •~ ° ~ v .5 d E; A ~ ~ fn > O 3 w X08888 .%. ,. Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plon Updote 6.5 ALTERNATIVE E: TRANSIT EMPHASIS In this alternative, development would be clustered around potential shuttle routes linking the downtown Caltrain station, the two BART stations, and businesses east of US 101. An ex- tension of the Airport Rail Transit system (ART)-currently under construction-is also in- cluded in the alternative, even though the northern alignment has not been finalized, and it might be financially prohibitive in the short term. Other key features of this alternative include a large office district (5 million square feet of space) near the San Bruno BART station, and a regional commercial center (approximately 1 million square feet) west of US 101 and south of Colma Creek. Mixed office and hotel devel- opment would be located in the light rail corridor along South Airport Boulevard. The re- maining developable sites near the South San Francisco BART station would be designated with mixed commercial/office development. Much of the waterfront would be dominated by research and development and business park uses. Approximately 12.7 million square feet of new non-residential space would be built in all, as shown in Table 6.6-1. New residential development would largely be limited to the Colma Creek corridor, and parts of the Lindenville area. The overall density of residential development would be lower than in the other alternatives, resulting in less overall development. About 3,060 units would be built in total. Infrastructure Improvements Infrastructure and transit service improvements include: • Extension of ART to Downtown South San Francisco. • New US 101 interchange at Airport Boulevard/US 101. • Maple Avenue extension to El Camino Real. • Anew east-west roadway in the east of 101 area (south of Grand Avenue). • Two roadway connections across the BART alignment. • Extensive shuttle bus system. 6-13 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 6-14 ~ rl _ .,' ~ ~~ alb ~~ ,, ~~ x ,.a ®'/// R . L', ~ ~~ //a \/ ~~ \ • R ~ ~ 1A O ,;; ; '"~~ k ~' s ~~ I ~ \ ~, f V' J.. . 0 e ~ a ~ a m ~ ~ ( (~~ , a ~ I . , ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . -- Y . ~ ~~ ~ , ,, ~ , ; ~ ~~ ~ 11i L/ w `x < Y P , y < •~ _~ Q ~_ ~N ('d W ~~ ~ ~~ L _ Q L .~ E RS G' .7 .~. p 3 cL ° .~ w d r O 8 00 A ... ~ ..~1 d ~+ a ~ 3 L u O ~ ~ C o :7 .~ u ~ ~ ~ O h oa0o~. V G v ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ •~ ~ o' ~ .~ ~ 0 F a O v, a a ~ Gz ~8~~~ ~ ~~~ h V ~ ~ ^ ti V y Q ~y O ~ ~ v Yom! al d ~ d ~ ~ G H A v ••"• ..°. u u .S QQ~ a~ .~ .~" V rn 5 O ~ W BB~~BBBB Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environments! Impact Repori fbr South San Francisco General Plan Update 6.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This section presents an overview of the impacts that each alternative may have on South San Francisco, in comparison with the proposed project. Impacts in the following areas are dis- cussed: • Land Use; • Parks, Recreation, Open Space; • Traffic and Transportation; • Air Quality; • Noise; • Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Facilities; • Telephone, Cable, Natural Gas, and Electricity; • Hazardous Materials; • Flooding; • Environmental Resources, including: - Soils, Geology, and Seismicity; - Hydrology and Water Quality; and - Biological Resources; • Police and Fire Protection; • Schools; • Cultural Resources; and • Visual Quality LAND USE South San Francisco has little undeveloped land, with the exception of San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and some wetland areas along the bayshore. Only three percent of the land in the Planning Area is vacant. Development has been approved or is under review on seven percent of the land in the Planning Area -although not all of this land was formerly vacant, as rede- velopment has occurred in many projects. All development that could occur in the city- whether in the proposed project or the alternatives-would be infill in nature. Table 6.6-1 summarizes development that would result from each alternative. 6- 17 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Table 6.6- I Development Summary and Buildout of Alternatives Housing Units Building Space (millions o f sq ft) Low Med/High Total Comm/ Visitor Business R&DS Once Industrial Total Density Density Retail Services' Parks Existing I I ,535' 8,232' 19,767 3. I 0.7 I . I ` 3. I' I . I ° 8.68 17.7 Development New Development No Further 990 160 I , 150 0.3 I . I 0.7 0 0.9 0.3 3.3 Development' No Projett2 I ,779 687 2,466 9.4 2. I 0.7 4.9 4.9 0.7 22.7 Lindenville 1,650 2,367 4,017 1.7 2.1 2.4 0 3.7 -1.5' 8.4 East of I O f I , 110 2,489 3,599 I 2.3 2. I 0 0.8 -0.7' S.5 Transit I ,654 I ,404 3,058 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.8 7.6 -1.3' 1 1.4 Proposed I , 180 I ,600 2,780 1.410 1.6 3.5 0 5.4" -3 8.9 Project Buildout No Further 12,525 8,392 20,917 3.4 1.8 1.8 3.1 2.0 8.9 21.0 Development' No Projett2 13,314 8,919 22,233 12.5 2.8 1.8 8.0 6.0 9.3 40.4 Lindenville 13, 185 10,599 23,784 4.8 2.8 3.5 3. I 4.8 7. I 26. I East of I OI 12,645 10,721 23,366 4.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 1.9 7.9 23.2 Transit 13,189 9,636 22,825 4.5 2. I 2.6 3.9 8.7 7.3 29.1 Proposed 12,715 9,832 22,547 4.5 2.3 4.6 3.1 6.5 5.6 26.6 Projett 'Indudes only existing approved development ' Estimates of residential development are from the current Housing Element Single-family and Condo developmem are assumed to be Low-densrry; Mutt} family is assumed to be Med/High-densrry. Estimates of non-residential development are from the East of 101 Areo Plan. All development in ~e Pbnned Commeraal, Coastal Commerdal, Gateway Specific Plan Area, Mixed Coastal Commercial distriar, and 50% of all development in the Mixed Planned Com- merdal/ Pbnned Industrial disrict is aswmed to he Commercal/Retail Twenty percent (20%) of all Commercal/Retail is aswmed to be Ysitor Services. All development in the Light Industrbl district and 50% of all development in the Mixed Planned Commerdal/ Planned Indusviol distda is oswmed to lie "Indus- trial" use. All development in the Planned Industrial district is aswmed to lie R&D. No additional non-residential development is aswmed for areas west of 101. ' Aswmes that all single-family detached homes ore lowdensity and that all townhouses, ottadied single-family homes, and multi-family residences are medium- or high~ensrty. ' Building area for Y~sRor Services uses in the Vndernilk and East of 101 oltematives was reduced by 30% to account for redevelopment a Aswmes 50% turnover in areas of proposed LD and MD/HD in the region north of downtown bound by Airport BHd., Maple Ave., Miller Ave., and Hillside Ave, and 30% turnover in the main Business Pork and Warehouse areas east of 101. ` Aswmes shot one-half of 2Z million square feet of floor urea in "O({rce and Business Park" use category is Business Pork in use, and half is Office in use 'Existing office and R&D uses cost of 101. ' Existing industrial uses of 11.7 million square feet arc oswmed to include R&D uses east of IOI. R&D uses totaling 3.1 million square feet ore wbtroaed out and listed sepomtefy. 'Estimated from dea~eased acreage of on overage 0.25 FAR: 135 arm in LindemiGe Emphasis Aft; 62 awes in East of 101 Emphasis Alc; 1 17 acres in Tron- sit Emphasis Alt 10 Indudes Coastal Commercal and Dowmown Commercal. "Includes Business Commercial. 6- 18 Chapter b: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Housing The No Project Alternative would result in the addition of 2,446 housing units, compared to 1,150 in the No Further Development Alternative, The proposed project would accommodate greater housing development-2,780 additional housing units-compared to the No Project Alternative, result in the development of approximately new housing units. All of the three "build" alternatives to the proposed project would accommodate more housing, because of the increased level of redevelopment assumed. The Lindenville Emphasis Alternative would have the greatest increase in housing (about 4,020) and would come closest to meeting re- gional population projections Large areas of South San Francisco are unsuitable for housing, as the result of noise impacts from US 101, I-280, and especially SFIA aircraft. The Lindenville Emphasis Alternative achieves high levels of housing development by proposing residential development in the Lindenville area by replacement of many employment-oriented uses with housing. However, parts of this area are subject to high noise levels from aircraft operations and single-event fly- over noise. Thus, while the Lindenville Alternative would lead to the largest increases in housing, because of the locational constraints on housing in the city, the proposed project would be preferable. The proposed project targets several areas throughout the city, including downtown and the El Camino comdor, for infill housing development at moderate to high densities. Building Area Because housing is got an appropriate use in much of the city, all of the alternatives, as well as the proposed project, have more non-residential than residential development. The proposed project would add approximately 12.0 million square feet of new commercial, visitor service, business park, and office uses and would replace about 3.0 million square feet of industrial space. The shift from industrial to other non-residential uses responds to the projected in- creased in service and high-tech jobs throughout the Bay Area, particularly in the vicinity of SFIA. Compared to the current General Plan (the No Project Alternative), the proposed project would result in diminished job growth in South San Francisco, as shown in Table 6.6-2. Whereas the buildout of the current General Plan would add approximately 57,500 jobs (1995-2020), the proposed project would generate about 32,300 jobs (1997-2020). The more moderate job growth in the proposed project reflects real estate market demands (see Table 6.0-1), which would not support the high level of development assumed under the current General Plan. The No Further Development Alternative would allow the most limited increases in employ- ment, but does not realistically respond to regional pressures for job growth. Similarly, the East of 101 proposes development that is significantly lower than in the proposed project - the 800,000 square feet of office space in the alternative would not even begin to meet the demand for 4,000,000 square feet of space. 6-19 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Development under the Lindenville Emphasis Alternative would allow comparable levels of overall development to the proposed project, although it proposes nearly double the amount of additional hotel development than are likely to find market support in the area. The pro- posed project more closely responds to market forces. Higher levels of non-residential development under the Transit Emphasis Alternative relative to the proposed project are plausible only with additional rail transit service. A more detailed discussion of the Transit Emphasis Alternative, with regard to transportation and non- residential development, is presented in the "Traffic and Transportation" subsection in this section. Table 6.6-2: Alternatives: Employment Comparison Change in Employment 1997-2020 1997 No Further No Project Lindenville Eost of 101 Transit Proposed Development Project Comm/Retail 10,400 700 23,500 6,320 3,780 5,010 3, 100 Visitor Services 1,800 2,700 5,000 4,960 5,550 3,230 3,900 R&D/Business Park/ 7,900 4,300 28,300 16,140 7,680 26,280 23,500 Office Warehouse/ II,100 300 700 (6,340) (3,300) (6,040) (3,200) Mixed Industrial Public and Schools 1,500 n.a. n.a. 310 280 230 0 Subtotal 32,700 8,000 57,500 21,390 13,990 28,710 27,300 Construction/ 2,500 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. I ,800 Agriculture Other (including at 3,800 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3,200 home workers) Total 39,000 8,000' 57,500' 2 I ,390' 13,990' 28,710' 32,300 Assuming proposed project buildout in 2020. Z "Service Commercial" employment is included in "Warehouse/Mixed Industriol" employment ' Ezdudes "Conswction/Agricuhure" and "Other" employment Source: Dyett & Bhatia PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE Existing park space is insufficient to serve the needs of existing development. Under the No Further Development Alternative, the lack of adequate amounts of park space would not be alleviated through the development of additional parks. Under the No Project Alternative, park and recreation facilities would be insufficient in a number of subareas throughout the 6-20 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update city, even with the addition of planned parks and open spaces. The three "build" alternatives would help alleviate the need for park space by adding additional parks: • Lindenville Emphasis. An system of neighborhood and linear parks would be included in the proposed residential neighborhood located in the Lindenville area. • East of 101 Emphasis. Park additions are proposed in the East of 101 business park district and along the waterfront. However, the development of Sign Hill would rep- resent amajor loss of existing open space under this alternative. • Transit Emphasis. Park and open space additions are proposed in Lindenville and Sign Hill. However, in each of these alternatives, the amount of proposed park land and open space would not be adequate to meet the long-term needs of the residents and workers in South San Francisco. None of the alternative would result in as much open space preservation in the east of 101 area, where most new development in the city will be occurring. The proposed project, by comparison, establishes an waterfront park that runs the entire length of the City's shoreline, and it requires park dedication in conjunction with non- residential development. Also> it protects Sign Hill by limiting it to very low-intensity devel- opment of single-family detached homes. None of the alternatives would help protect the Terrabay development on the southern slopes of San Bruno Mountain, where development has already been approved. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION This section provides a summary transportation assessment of the alternatives, focusing on the No Project, Lindenville Emphasis, East of 101 Emphasis, and Transit Emphasis Alterna- tives. For each alternative, the amount of travel demand generated from new development was estimated and compared to the overall transportation capacity, including proposed roadway and transit improvements. Additional improvements necessary for each alternative are then identified. Trip Generation Daily trips generated by each alternative were estimated by applying trip generation rates to the sizes of development based on land use category, and are presented in Table 6.6-3. The rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, Trip Genera- tion, Sixth Edition and are presented in the Sketch Plan report completed in preparation of the General Plan Update in April 1998. Rates are based on surveys of uses in suburban areas with modest amounts of transit use and ride-sharing, similar to South San Francisco. Reduc- tions for shared trips among the uses, or internalized trips, were applied. The number of trips generated in each alternative closely parallels the amount of development generated. The No Project Alternative generates the greatest number of trips, as a result of 6-21 Chapter b: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update large-scale non-residential development in the East of 101 area. Of the three "build" alterna- tives, the Transit Emphasis Alternative generates the most trips, followed by the Lindenville and East of 101 Alternatives. Trip reductions to account for increased transit use for the Transit Emphasis Alternative are not incorporated into Table 6.6-3 but are incorporated into the roadway segment analysis presented in Table 6.6-5. Daily trips generated from the pro- posed project are towards the lower end of the spectrum of the "build" alternatives, and less than 1/4`~ of those estimated for the No Project Alternative. Table 6.6-3 Trip Generation Estimates for New Development (Above Existing and Approved Development) Proposed Alternat ives Project Land Use No Project' Lindenville East of I O I Transit 68 I 6, 192 5 2,304 6,22 I I ,450 , Low Density Residential 451 9,849 2 10,416 5,371 6,810 , Med/High Density Residential Commercial/ Retail2 273,910 42,070 21,341 31,325 21,890 400 17,216 6 20,384 5,568 6,360 , Visitor Services 200 12,920 39 10,064 12, 120 22,950 , Business Park/R&D 548 31 6,406 66,352 45,820 , 35,200 Office -7,695 Warehouse) Industrial 22,800 -3,648 -6>726 - 18,040 641 112, 100 385 67,268 120,225 87,240 , Total al development Rate reduction due to ir~terna6zed nips See South San ' Estimated by applying reduced trip generation rates to poterrti n Francesco Planning Diviswn. h S S o out Francisco General Plan: Sketch Plans Report, available at the Crty of llndudes Service Commerdal Roadway Improvements Because South San Francisco is virtually built out, the potential for effective major roadway improvements is limited to a few locations. Thus, many of the improvements outlined here are common to more than one alternative. However, the size of the improvements is related to the location and intensity of proposed land uses. For example, while the roadway im- provements and their alignments ~ffic anes are differentn~lle and the Transit Emphasis Al- ternatives, the number of needed tra The needed major roadwaevard betweent Eccles Avenue and GulllDrive was assumed to be tion of Oyster Point Boul widened to four lanes, as included in the City's Capital Improvement Program. 6-22 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Table 6.6-4 Transportation Improvements Lindenville Alternative East of 101 Alternative Transit Alternative Proposed Project New interchange at US I OI and Airport Boule- vard Extension of Victory Avenue (4 lanes) to new interchange (with rail- road crossing) Railroad Avenue Exten- sion to East Grand Ave- nue (2 lanes) Two connections to EI Camino Real (2 lanes each) New roadway connec- tion from Armour to Gateway (crossing US 101 and railroad) Railroad Avenue Exten- sion to East Grand Ave- nue (2 lanes) New interchange at US 101 and Airport Boule- vard Extension of Victory Avenue (4 lanes) to new interchange (with rail- road crossing) Railroad Avenue Exten- sion to East Grand Ave- nue (4 lanes) New connections to EI Camino Real (2 to 4 lanes at Maple and/or Linden) Shuttle bus service New interchange at US I O I and Airport Boule- vard Extension of Victory Avenue (4 lanes) to new interchange (with rail- road crossing) Railroad Avenue Exten- sion to East Grand Ave- nue New connections to EI Camino Real (2 to 4 lanes at Maple and Lin- den Avenues) Mission Road extension (Chestnut to Maple) Myrtle Avenue exten- sion (Spruce to Linden) Evaluation of Alternatives The alternatives were evaluated by comparing their trip generation and distribution charac- teristics to available capacity, based on the number of lanes, at selected locations. The results are presented in Table 6.6-5. Existing volumes, traffic from approved developments, and traf- fic generated by the added land uses for each alternative are shown in the table. For planning purposes, a roadway segment is considered to be congested when the volume-to-capacity ra- tio reaches 0.8. No Further Development Under the No Further Development Alternative, the growth associated with the proposed General Plan, and associated increase in traffic, would not occur. Similarly, adverse air quality and noise due to continued development would be avoided with this alternative. Neverthe- less, congested portions of the City's street network would remain an issue. Lindenville Alternative Most of the added travel demand in the Lindenville Alternative would be generated by office, retail, and hotel uses. A large portion of the office space (approximately 2.4 million square feet) would be located near the San Bruno BART station. Many of the trips generated by the 6-23 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update office uses would be made via BART, due to its proximity to the station. Transit (SamTrans) or shuttle bus service could be provided to support BART use. Table 6.6-5 Roadway Segment Analysis (Volume/Capacity) Ratio Alternatives pro osed p Roadway Segment Project No Projed~ Lindenville East of I O I Transit Oyster Point Boulevard 75 0 1 03 I. US I OI to Gateway 0.8 I 0.78 0.76 . . (Div. To new street) 2. Gateway to Eccles 0.54 0.64 0.62 0.50 0.71 East Grand Avenue 70 0 73 0 0.59 0.78 3. Gateway to Forbes 0.85 . . To New Street) (Div . 4. East of Forbes 0.69 0.54 0.56 0.49 0.62 (Div. To New Street) Forbes Boulevard 16 0 17 0 0.14 0.31 5. Allerton to Gull 0.12 . . Grandview Drive 29 0 0.29 0.27 0.60 6. North of Grand 0.24 . 19 0 46 0 7. South of Forbes 0.17 0.2 I 0.22 . . Spruce Avenue 5 I 0 0.6 I 0.53 0.54 0.66 8. East of EI Camino . Linden Avenue 72 0 60 0 0.78 0.53 0.78 9. Canal to Commercial . . (Div. To Maple Ext) 75 0 68 0 10. South of Victory 0.50 0.73 0.64 . . (Div. To Maple Ext) South Airport Boulevard 60 0 62 0 I I .Utah to I-380 Ramps 0.60 0.63 0.73 . . Existing volume to capoaty ratios Source: Fehr & Peers The proposed new interchange on US 101 would be needed to accommodate the amount of traffic generated by large commerciaUretail development of approximately 1.0 million square feet, especially if the targeted retail is a power center. (Power centers are a regional draw, therefore most of the traffic will be using US 101. Additionally, power center patrons do not use transit to any appreciable extent due to the nature of the goods they are buying). The fea- 6-24 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update sibility of the new interchange at US 101 should be determined prior to proceeding with the proposed retail center. Hotel development is distributed throughout the US 101 corridor. Many of the hotel guests will be arriving in the area via the SFIA. All of the hotels should be required to provide shuttle service between the hotel and the airport. In addition, parking supply limitations should be considered to discourage vehicular trips to the area. The Railroad Avenue extension to East Grand Avenue is needed to alleviate congestion on two of the analyzed roadway segments, Oyster Point Boulevard between US 101 and Gateway Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue between Gateway Boulevard and Forbes Drive. East of IOI Alternative This alternative would generate the lowest travel demand of the three "build" alternatives due to the limited amount of proposed development. Most of the added travel demand will be generated by the retail and hotel uses. Approximately 0.5 million square feet of retail is pro- posed east of US 101, in the southern part of the city. Traffic bound to and from this area would access US 101 and I-380 via South Airport Boulevard. Hotel development is distrib- uted on both sides of US 101. All of the hotels should be required to provide shuttle service between the hotel and the airport. In addition, parking supply limitations should be consid- ered to discourage vehicular trips. Because of the fewer roadway and transit improvements associated with this alternative, over- all levels of service would be worse on many roadway segments, when compared to other al- ternatives. Levels of service are generally better than in the proposed project. Transit Emphasis Alternative This alternative has the greatest travel demand generation potential of the three "build" alter- natives. The largest trip-generating uses are retail and office uses (with over 7 million square feet of building space). The total number of trips under this alternative are reduced by 10 per- cent to account for the added shuttle bus service. The proposed new interchange on US 101 would be needed to accommodate the amount of traffic generated by large commercial/retail development of approximately 1.0 million square feet, and the office spaces near the San Bruno BART station. Extending Maple Avenue or widening Linden Avenue would be needed to alleviate projected congestion on Linden Avenue south of Victory Avenue, due to office and retail development near the San Bruno BART station. This alternative includes a proposed extension of the Airport Rail Transit (ART) system and shuttle bus service provided throughout the city connecting the two BART stations, the downtown area, and the relocated downtown Caltrain station. While the idea of being able to take a short rail journey to the San Francisco International Airport from downtown is ap- pealing, rail systems can be costly ($20 to $40 million per mile) and are inflexible -the routes cannot be easily changed. The proposed rail extension would capture some of the travel de- mand of the hotels along its route (such as guests traveling between the hotel and the airport). 6-25 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update It is unlikely that the airport rail would capture much of the office travel demand since the number of trips between the offices and the airport would be limited. Shuttle bus or van service would capture a greater share of the trips because it would provide more direct, door- to-door service, and would also be less expensive, more flexible, and responsive to route changes. Therefore, the rail system extension is not recommended at this stage. (see discus- sion of the feasibility of the ART extension in the next chapter). Comparative Analysis Traffic volumes on I-280 and US 101 are projected to exceed capacity in 2010. Projected vol- umes of LOS F on US 101 and LOS E on I-280 take into account major planned improve- ments to BART and Caltrain. Intersection conditions east of US 101 will likely worsen with development of the area. Under the No Project Alternative, no additional transportation improvements are assumed, other than projects already included in the current General Plan. Thus, volume/capacity ra- tions on several surveyed routes would exceed 0.8. In the "build" alternatives, traffic vol- ume/capacity rations would generally remain about 0.8. Key traffic issues for the "build" al- ternatives include the following: • Lindenville Emphasis. While a number of the trips generated by the offices will use BART, congestion may worsen on major roads in that area. • East of 101 Emphasis. The East of 101 Emphasis Alternative generates the lowest travel demand of the "build" alternatives due to the limited amount of proposed develop- ment. Most of the added travel demand would be generated by retail and hotel uses located east of US 101 in the southern part of the city. However, its resulting levels of service are lower than for other "build" alternatives. • Transit Emphasis. This alternative has the greatest travel demand generation potential of the three "build" alternatives. The largest trip-generating uses are retail and office uses. The total number of trips under this alternative is reduced by 10 percent due to added shuttle bus service. Levels of service are on major roadway segments are the best, compared to other alternatives and the proposed project, as the result of the rail transit extension and transit-oriented office and hotel development. AIR QUALITY Under all of the alternatives, development would result in construction-related air quality impacts and long-term changes in emissions of criteria air pollutants. Like development un- der the proposed General Plan Update, short-term construction dust would be expected to affect the immediate vicinities of individual construction sites, but would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of appropriate dust abatement measures. Over the long- term, criteria air pollutant emissions would vary among the alternatives principally due to varying levels of vehicular activity associated with the different land uses that would be devel- 6-26 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update aped. Estimates of criteria air pollutants, population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have been prepared for all of the development alternatives and are summarized in Table 6.6-6. Table 6.6-6 compares the emissions under each of the alternatives with those estimated under existing conditions and those under the proposed General Plan Update and also compares the estimated percent increase in population and VMT among the various alternatives. Table 6.6-6 Estimated Pollutant Emissions 1999 No Further Develop- ment Estimated Emissions (pounds per day)' No Project Lindenville East o f 101 Transit Pro- posed Project Pollutant Carbon Monoxide 78,900 33,000 51,900 39,500 36,800 40,200 38,300 Reactive Organic Gases 7, 100 3,300 4,900 3,900 3,700 3,900 3,800 (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 9,500 6,400 I I ,200 7,800 7, 100 8,000 7,600 Particulate Matter (PM- 2,900 3,100 5,500 3,800 3,500 3,900 3,700 10) Net Change In Emissions Versu s Existing Carbon Monoxide _ -46,000 -27,000 -39,400 -42,200 -38,800 -40,600 Reactive Organic Gases - -3,800 -2,200 -3,200 -3,400 -3,200 -3,300 (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides (NO,~ _ _3, 100 I ,700 - I ,700 -2,400 - I ,500 - I ,900 Particulate Matter (PM- _ 300 2,600 900 600 1,100 900 10) Percent Increase Versus Existing Conditions Population - 6 12 20 18 15 14 Vehicle Miles Traveled - 15 102 41 29 46 37 (VMT) f Emissions estimates were mode using URBEMIS 7G and include all area sources (except woodstoves and fireplace use) and vehicular sources assoaated with development in South San Fronasco. Emissions from woodstove and fireplace use were estimated using a methodobgy developed by the Air Resources Board. Vehicular carbon monoxide emissions reflect and ambiem temperature of SO de- grees (Fahrenheit), and the other pollutant emissions from vehicles reflect an ambient temperature of 75 degrees. Source: Environmental Science Associates, 1999. 6-27 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update As shown in Table 6.6-6, with the except of the existing General Plan, emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) would be less in 2020 than in 1999 due to the continuing beneficial effect of state and federal emissions controls programs for motor vehicles. Under the existing General Plan, however, new development would offset the reduction in emissions per VMT to the extent that there would be a net in- crease in NOX of approximately 1,700 pounds per day. Table 6.6-6 also shows that direct emissions of suspended particulate matter (PM-10) would be higher under all of the future development scenarios relative to existing conditions. Unlike the other pollutants shown in Table 6.6-6, PM-10 emissions are primarily associated with entrained road dust rather than combustion, and thus, would not be reduced by improved exhaust controls. The net increase in PM-10 relative to existing conditions would range from 300 pounds per day under the "No Further Development" alternative to 2,600 pounds per day under the "No Project" develop- ment alternative. Table 6.6-6 also compares the estimated percentage increase in population and VMT for all of the alternatives. In all future cases, the rate of increase in VMT outpaces the rate of increase in population. Thus, all future alternatives would be inconsistent with the regional Clean Air Plan and thereby result in a significant air quality impact. NOISE Impacts on Residential Uses Extensive housing development in South San Francisco is limited due to noise impacts from SFIA, US 101, El Camino Real, and the Caltrain right-of--way. Residential development under the proposed project would be exposed to traffic noise from US 101 and El Camino Real and single-event flyover noise from SFIA. Impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section 4.5. Alternatives with lower levels of housing development would prevent potential exposure to excessive noise levels. The No Project and No Further Development Alternatives would result in lower levels of housing development, therefore limiting potential exposure of new residen- tial uses to noise. However, these two alternatives would fall short of meeting regional de- mands for demands, even more so than the proposed project. Both the Lindenville Emphasis and Transit Emphasis Alternatives would result in residential development south of Colma Creek. While residential development would not be located within the airport's 65 dB CNEL noise contour, it would be situated less than ahalf--mile from the contour and would be subject to single-event flyover impacts. Under the Proposed Proj- ect, the only development proposed for the area south of the Creek would be located in the vicinity of the Spruce Street crossing. The East of 101 Emphasis Alternative includes no new residential development south of the Colma Channel and would therefore be preferable with regard to SFIA noise impacts. Nev- ertheless, development along El Camino Real and in downtown would still be subject to 6-28 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update roadway noise. Also, in order to compensate for lower levels of residential development in the Lindenville area, the East of 101 Emphasis Alternative would allow new residential develop- ment on the north side of Sign Hill, an ecologically sensitive area. Thus, the overall housing program in the proposed project is preferable, because it limits development in both the Sign Hill area, as well as the noise-prone Lindenville area, while allowing intensive development in downtown, along Colma Creek, and along El Camino Real. Truck and Traffic Noise The proposed project will potentially reduce truck-related noise through the replacement of approximately 3,000,000 square feet of existing industrial and warehouse development. Be- cause it proposes a larger decrease in industrial and warehousing uses than any of the three "build" alternatives (see Table 6.6-1), it would have a greatest potential decrease in truck- related noise. Under the No Project Alternative, the addition of another 700,000 square feet of industrial and warehousing uses would potentially increase truck traffic and truck-related noise from existing levels. Overall traffic noise would potentially be lowest under the Transit Emphasis Alternative. Lower levels of congestion are generally associated with lower roadway noise levels on City streets. Because the Transit Emphasis Alternative would have better levels of service on most roadway segments (see Table 6.6-5), compared to the proposed project and the alternatives, overall noise levels would also be expected to be lower. Lower traffic congestion in the Transit Emphasis Alternative would result from investment in an ART extension and transit-oriented development around the Caltrain and ART stations. WATER, WASTEWATER, AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Under the No Further Development Alternative, fewer demands on water, wastewater and solid waste facilities and services would be made, compared to the Proposed Project. Moreo- ver, no new impervious areas would be created beyond currently approved development, maintaining current storm water runoff levels. The increase in surface and ground water pollutants associated with new development would also be limited. However, because the No Further Development Alternative is economically unrealistic and does not respond to major community issues, it would not be preferable to the proposed project. In the No Project Alternative, industrial users will continue to be a significant factor in both water usage and wastewater treatment capacity, since existing industrial uses will be main- tained and expanded. Additional industrial and warehousing development at levels approved under the current General Plan (see Table 6.6-1) would potentially generate demand in excess of available supply or distribution capacity, even more so that the proposed project (see Im- pact 4.6-a). Expansion of the South San Francisco/San Bruno sewage treatment plant, based on assumptions in population and industrial growth would be expected to alleviate increasing demand. Projected industrial expansion in East of 101 was a significant factor in the expan- sion of the treatment plant, which is currently taking place. 6-29 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update In the three "build" Alternatives, the conversion of much of the East of 101 area from indus- trial and warehousing uses to a business park would be expected to reduce water usage and wastewater generation. Industrial users tend to be much larger consumers of water than other non-residential users. However, none of these three alternatives would reduce industrial and warehousing uses as much as the proposed project, which would therefore be expected to have larger overall reductions in water and wastewater needs from industrial users. The East of 101 Emphasis Alternative, with the lowest overall levels of new non-residential development would be expected to have lower new needs for water, and wastewater and solid waste disposal. However, as discussed in previous sections, this alternative would fail to pro- vide adequate opportunities for non-residential-particularly office-development, in re- sponse to regional growth pressures. Residential development under the proposed project or any of the alternatives would not have as great an impact on water, wastewater, or solid waste facilities, compared to non-residential development. Thus, lower levels of residential development under the No Project Alternative, while generating less need for water, wastewater, and solid waste facilities in and of itself, would not generate lower overall needs when combined with non-residential development. TELEPHONE, CABLE, NATURAL GAS, AND ELECTRICITY The No Further Development Alternative would create less demand for telephone, cable, natural gas, and electrical service, compared to the proposed project, but provides an unreal- istic program for long-term development. Most other alternatives, due to higher levels of residential and/or non-residential development, would be likely to generate greater demands than the proposed project. The East of 101 Emphasis Alternative would result in less demand from non-residential development, which would be substantially lower than the proposed project (see Table 6.6-1). HAZARDOUS MATERIALS In terms of hazardous materials, the No Further Development Alternative would have the least impact of any alternative and a smaller overall impact than the proposed project. The limited amount of new development would mean that some contaminated sites east of 101 would remain undeveloped, minimizing the risk of exposure to hazardous substances. Exten- sive development east of 101 under the No Project Alternative would create the greatest po- tential exposure to hazazdous materials. Of the three "build" alternatives, the East of 101 Emphasis Alternative would likely have a smaller impact than the proposed project, because non-residential development would be less. The Lindenville Emphasis and Transit Emphasis Alternatives-which have comparable and larger amounts of non-residential development, respectively-would have similaz or greater impacts. 6-30 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Drof't Environmental Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update FLOODING The major flood-prone areas of the city are the banks of Colma Creek, particularly the eastern end of the creek, near the SP tracks and US 101. The proposed project would result in some development adjacent to Colma Creek, both west and east of US 101, potentially exposing new development to flood hazards. Residential development adjacent to Colma Creek would be limited to areas west of Linden Street By comparison, the No Further Development Alternative would have little potential impact on flooding potential in the city. The relatively small amount of development that would re- sult from currently approved projects would minimize the creation of additional impervious surfaces and runoff, which could exacerbate the City's existing flood-control problems. Most of the other alternatives would have comparable or greater impacts on flood conditions, compared to the proposed project. In all three "build" alternatives, extensive development in the vicinity of the Colma Creek would potentially be subject to flooding. The following sum- marizes development that would occur in the vicinity of Colma Creek under the three "build" alternatives: • Lindenville Emphasis. Residential development west of the SP railroad tracks; hotel and office development adjacent to US 101. • East of 101 Emphasis. Hotel and office development adjacent to US 101. • Transit Emphasis. High-density residential development west of the SP railroad tracks; high-intensity hotel and office development, as well as commercial/ retail uses adja- cent to US 101. The overall amount of development west of 101 could potentially impact flood conditions in Colma Creek as well, since areas west of 101 drain into the Creek. The three "build" alterna- tives would have comparable levels of development west of 101 (beyond the Lindenville area) to the proposed project. The No Project and No Further Development Alternatives would have less development west of 101, limiting the creation of new impervious surfaces and run- off into the Creek. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES This subsection compares how each alternative would potentially impact environmental re- sources, including: • Geology, soils, and seismicity; • Hydrology and water quality; and • Biological resources. 6-31 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update The No Further Development Alternative would have the least impact on environmental re- sources overall, because there would be no further development beyond currently approved projects. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Any development east of 101 would be subject to the risk of earthquake-related damage. Soils in the flat low-lying eastern areas of the city are comprised largely of Bay mud overlain with fill. They have a high shrink-swell potential, high water table, and low strength, characteristics which amplify earthquake waves and ground-shaking and are subject to liquefaction. The proposed project includes development of approximately 12.0 million square feet of new non-residential space, mostly located east of 101. The No Further Development Alternative would introduce the least new development east of 101, and of the "build" alternatives, the East of 101 Emphasis Alternative would include the smallest amount of development. Less development overall would help reduce the risk of damage in the event of an earthquake. In any alternative, new development would be required to meet seismic safety standards estab- lished by state and local government. Because each alternative includes approved development, each is subject to potential landslide impacts in the Terrabay project area, which was recently approved for development. Large areas of the southern slope of San Bruno Mountain have been determined to have high po- tential for landslides, due to the shrink-swell hazards, high erosion hazards, 2nd low strength typically associated with steep slopes. Therefore, no alternative would alleviate the landslide potential associated with the Proposed Project. Hydrology and Water Quality New development or intensification in any alternative would potentially increase the amount of impervious surface in the city and therefore generate additional runoff: The No Further Development Alternative, by limiting new development to approved projects, would have the least potential impact on city-wide water flows. Also, it would have the least amount of devel- opment located west of 101. Since the area west of 101 drains into Colma Creek, less devel- opment in the western part of the city implies less overall runoff into the Creek. The three "build" alternatives would be expected to generate similar levels of runoff into the Creek from development in the western parts of the city, as the proposed project. Biological Resources There are several ecologically sensitive areas in South San Francisco that could potentially serve or do serve as habitat for special status species. These include: the southern slopes of San Bruno Mountain (Terrabay project area); the northern slope of Sign Hill; the San Bruno Ca- nal Shoreline; the shoreline south of San Bruno Canal; and Cohna Creek. The approved Ter- rabay project would result in development of the southern slopes of San Bruno Mountain under the Proposed Project and any of the alternatives, since the project has already been ap- 6-32 Chapter b: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco Generol Plan Update proved and cannot be eliminated by the General Plan Update. The alternatives vary, however, in the treatment of the other ecologically sensitive areas. • Northern slope of Sign Hill. The No Further Development Alternative would provide the most protection of the northern slope of Sign Hill by maintaining the entire site in its existing vacant state. Similar to the proposed project-which would allow very limited large-lot residential development on condition of detailed environmental as- sessment and mitigation-the No Project, Lindenville Emphasis, and Transit Empha- sis Alternatives would maintain most of the area as open space. The East of 101 Em- phasis Alternative includes the development of the site as Low Density Residential in use and would be less desirable from a habitat perspective. • San Bruno Canal Shoreline and Southern Shoreline. The No Further Development Al- ternative would ensure the least encroachment upon this sensitive area. The No Proj- ect Alternative would also provide strong protection--comparable to the proposed project-because the existing General Plan diagram designates the entire shoreline as open space. The East of 101 Emphasis Alternative includes only a small shoreline park extending northward from the San Bruno Canal area. The Lindenville Emphasis and Transit Emphasis Alternatives do not include shoreline parks or open space, resulting in the potential degradation of this sensitive area. • Colma Creek. The No Further Development Alternative would ensure the least new encroachment on the creek, providing the least disturbance of existing conditions. The No Project Alternative and Lindenville Emphasis Alternative both provide a creekside park that would help preserve the habitat. A similar but smaller park is pro- vided in the proposed project, reflecting the more limited amount of residential de- velopment, compared to the Lindenville Emphasis Alternative. No parks are provided along the creek in the East of 101 Emphasis or Transit Emphasis Alternatives. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION The No Further Development Alternative would create the least impact on police and fire services, because it would generate the least population and employment growth. Nearly all other alternatives would potentially place greater demands on police and fire service, com- pared to the proposed project, because of higher population and job growth: • The No Project Alternative would generate more than double the job growth, requir- ing additional police and fire services, particularly in the east of 101 area. • The Lindenville Emphasis Alternative would generate comparable job growth and greater population growth, potentially requiring more policing and fire protection in new residential areas west of 101. • The Transit Emphasis Alternative would generate more job and population growth overall, potentially requiring additional police and fire service. 6-33 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update • The East of 101 Emphasis Alternative would result in greater population growth than the proposed project, resulting in greater needs for police protection, particularly in the areas west of 101. SCHOOLS Projected school needs would exceed the amount of available school capacity in all alterna- tives. In the No Further Development and No Project Alternatives, the increase in need would result from reduced class size, rather than increases in population. In the "build" alternatives, the population increase would exceed the population increase in the proposed project, con- tributing to an increase in school need. • Lindenville Emphasis. The concentration of residential growth in the Lindenville area may create the need for an additional school in that neighborhood. • East of 101 Emphasis. Though residential development is more dispersed than in the Lindenville Emphasis Alternative, the addition of about 3,600 housing units may contribute to increases in school needs, above existing capacity. • Transit Emphasis. A concentration of residential growth between Downtown and Lin- denville may create the need for additional schools in the eastern end of the city. By comparison, the proposed project would result in a smaller population increase and thus a smaller overall increase in school demand. The reduction in class size would still create an increase in school need from existing conditions. Also, because new housing development would be dispersed throughout the city, no one part of the city would have a disproportionate increase in school needs, as in the Lindenville and Transit Emphasis Alternatives. CULTURAL RESOURCES State law protects designated historical and archaeological sites. New development would therefore not threaten known sites, but it could potentially lead to the accidental disruption of currently undiscovered archeological resources. Also, new development could potentially threaten historical structures that have been deemed ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places or state-designated historic sites, but it could threaten sites of local historical importance. The No Further Development Alternative would provide the greatest protection for areas with known archaeological and historical sites and structures. In particular, compared to the proposed project, relatively little development would occur in downtown, which has the greatest concentration of historical sites. The potential impacts of approved projects-which are included in the No Further Development Alternative, as well as all other alternatives- have been considered under separate project-level environmental review. This includes the controversial, recently approved Terrabay project, where Native American sites have been documented 6-34 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update The other alternatives would have comparable potential impacts to the proposed project. In- fill development in the downtown area could potentially disrupt historical sites in the area. The No Project, Lindenville Emphasis, East of 101 Emphasis, and Transit Emphasis Alterna- tives could all potentially disrupt archaeological sites along El Camino Real, since they all propose development in some form along the corridor, particularly near the future South San Francisco BART station. One Native American archaeological site has been found in the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area. Only the No Further Development Alternative could avoid this potential impact. URBAN DESIGN Under the No Further Development Alternative, the existing urban form would remain un- changed. Improvements to the city's community character resulting from implementation of proposed urban design policies under the proposed project would not occur. Similarly, the No Project Alternative would fail to protect key visual elements of the City's character, such as the shoreline, creeks, ridgelines, tree cover, and vegetation, from the impacts of new devel- opment. The current General Plan does not thoroughly address issues of urban design. Many of the key urban design features in the three "build" alternatives were incorporated into the Proposed Project. For example, the linear park along the underground BART line- shown in all three alternatives-is included in the proposed project. Also, the shoreline park considered in the East of 101 Emphasis Alternative is incorporated into the proposed project and expanded. Nevertheless, each build alternative contains unique differences from the Proposed Project that would potentially benefit the urban form and character of the city: • Lindenville Emphasis. The creation of a residential neighborhood with a more fine- grain street grid would substantially improve the area's visual quality. The large ex- isting industrial blocks would appear more accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists and create a stronger connection to downtown. Other benefits of this alternative include the addition of parks and increased connections between adjacent neighborhoods. • East of 101 Emphasis. New streets created in conjunction with business park develop- ment would help break-up large industrial blocks and provide greater accessibility within the East of 101 area. This measure would also help improve connections to the shoreline from the western half of the city. • Transit Alternative. Residential, office, and commercial development in the Lin- denville area under this alternative would help improve the visual quality of the cur- rently industrial area. Intensive development and a finer grain of streets would help encourage pedestrian activity in areas around transit stations. 6-35 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 6.7 _ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The No Further Development Alternative, while difficult to implement, would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative would eliminate significant and potentially significant impacts by completely restricting new growth. Impacts that would be avoided include, but are not limited to: worsening levels of service at roadway intersections and segments; pressures on public facilities and services; short- and long-term air quality deg- radation; and increased noise levels. However, the No Further Development Alternative is infeasible because it is the nature of ur- ban areas to evolve and grow over time. This alternative is inconsistent with existing City policies, historic and projected growth patterns in South San Francisco, and the rights of indi- vidual property owners to make improvements to their properties. Restricting future devel- opment would also threaten the City's economic viability. CEQA requires that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative-and the No Further Development Alternative being its derivation-another en- vironmentally superior alternative is to be identified. Of the three "build" alternatives, there is no single one that is superior to the proposed project in all or most respects. However, each of the "build" alternatives is environmentally superior in certain areas. The areas in which these alternatives would potentially be superior-and the reasons for which the proposed project remains preferable-are discussed below. HOUSING The Lindenville Emphasis alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, in that it would maximize the potential amount of housing development it the City, coming closer than any other alternative to meeting regionally projected population increases. However, this alternative achieves this high level of housing by large-scale replacement of ex- isting businesses in the Lindenville area with housing development. This area is also subject to noise impacts from US 101 and SFIA, as well assingle-event flyover noise from aircraft. For this reason, the proposed project is considered preferable. NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SPACE The East of 101 Emphasis Alternative would be environmentally superior in several areas, be- cause its low overall amount of non-residential development-particularly office develop- ment-would result in fewer related impacts, including: • Less potential exposure to hazardous materials found in the fill soils east of US 101, where other alternative and the proposed project would result in large amounts of de- velopment; • Less potential exposure to the negative impacts of seismic activity, since some areas east of 101 are susceptible to liquefaction; and 6-36 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update • Less traffic generation. (Transportation and traffic impacts are discussed in greater detail below.) Despite the potential benefits resulting from lower non-residential development, the East of 101 Emphasis Alternative falls short of accommodating regional pressures for non-residential development. At 800,000 square feet of office space, the alternative would barely begin to ac- commodate the demand for 4,000,000 square feet of space. Because it does not respond ade- quately to regional growth pressures, the East of 101 Emphasis is not preferable to the pro- posed project. TRANSPORTATION The Transit Emphasis alternative would be environmentally superior in terms of transporta- tion, because it is associated with the largest investment in roadway and transit improve- ments. The large number of trips generated under this alternative would be substantially di- verted to transit through a $100 million extension of the ART to downtown and the concen- tration of intensive commercial uses around the Caltrain and ARLS stations. Nevertheless, although the Transit Emphasis is the superior alternative in this respect, it is not preferable to the proposed project. The cost of building the light rail extension is a major bar- rier to its future development. In the absence of the rail extension, the large number of trips generated by the Transit Emphasis alternative would be more likely made via automobile, generating higher levels of traffic. By comparison, the East of 101 Emphasis would generate the least number of new trips of any alternative, (see Table 6.6-3) even though it is associated with the least roadway and transit improvements and worse levels of service than the Transit Emphasis. The East of 101 Em- phasis Alternative achieves the lowest total number of trips, primarily because it provides for low levels of office development (see Table 6.6-1) than the proposed project. As discussed above, the low amount of office development would barely begin to meet the amount of of- fice space that could be supported in the real estate market. CONCLUSION The proposed project was developed in mid-1998 by considering the three "build" alterna- tives and took into consideration the various different proposals included in the alternatives. The City weighed the issues and impacts that arose in examining each of the alternatives in detail and developed a proposed project that is intended to balance the needs for housing and non-residential development with planning constraints, such as noise, transportation, infra- structure and service capacity, and cultural resources. While each "build" alternative would potentially avoid one or another significant impact, no single one is preferable to the proposed project. The proposed General Plan Update accom- modates regional pressures for new non-residential development and employment growth, 6-37 Chapter 6: Analysis of Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update building upon the City's location near SFIA, San Francisco, and Silicon Valley, and along Highway. Housing sites are identified throughout the city, although the location of housing is limited by noise impacts from SFIA, major roadways, and truck traffic. No alternative scheme for non-residential development would simultaneously meet regional growth while providing adequate, feasible measures for accommodating the increased trip generation. None of the housing development scenarios considered under the alternatives adequately limits potential noise impacts, while still identifying housing sites throughout the city. 6-38 Chapter 7: Report Authors Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update 7. Report Authors A. REPORT PREPARATION This DEIR has been prepared by: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Consulting Planner (Project Manager for the City) CONSULTING TEAM Dyett e'r Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, Primary Consultant 70 Zoe Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Darry Smith, Planner Joseph Ferruchi, Planner Diana Lee, Planner (former employee) Sarah Bernstein Jones, AICP, Planner (former employee) Mark Chambers, Graphics Manager Subconsultants contributing to the DEIR are the following. Environmental Science Associates, Environmental Consultants 225 Bush Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Marty Abell, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Nanry Barbic, Senior Plant and Wetland Ecologist Peter Hudson, Geologist Jeff Wehling, Air Quality Specialist ~-~ Chapter 7: Report Authors Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Frocisco Generol Plan Update Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Transportation Consultants 1153 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 1 San Jose, CA 95125 Jane Bierstedt, P.E., Principal-in-Charge Charles M. Slater Associates, Inc, Consultants in Acoustics 130 Sutter Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Jack Freytag, P.E., Director 7-2 Chapter 8: Organizations and Persons Consulted Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update 8. Organizations and Persons Consulted CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Administration Michael Wilson, City Manager Economic and Community Development Marty Van Duyn, Director Planning Division Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Consulting Planner (Project Manager for the City) Fire Prevention/ Building Division Russ Lee, Fire Chief Don Castain, Building Inspector Parks, Recreation, And Community Services Barry Nagel, Director Sharon Ranals, Recreation and Community Services Public Works John Gibbs, Director Cyrus Kianpour, City Engineer Russell Harness, Airport Noise Insulation Program Frank McAuley, Supervisor David Valkenaar, Retrofit Program Project Manager, Airport Noise Insulation Program Police Department Mark Raffaelli, Police Chief Sergeant Mike Massoni Water Quality Control Plant Ray Honan, Stormwater Coordinator/STOPP Supervisor 8-I Chapter 8: Organizations and Persons Consulted Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Ken Navarre, Assistant Superintendent SAN MATED COUNTY San Mateo County Department Of Environmental Health Greg Shirley San Mateo County Flood Control District Walt Callahan, Flood Control Manager Daniel Wong San Mateo County Planning And Building Division David Carbone, Senior Planner/Airport Planning OTHER AGENCIES Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rochelle Walker, Air Quality Technician Pacific Bell Jeff Reckers Pacific Gas and Electric Helen Fisicaro South San Francisco Unified School District Janice B. Smith, Assistant Superintendent George Elias TCI Cable Greg Shocker s-~ Appendix A: Notice of Preparation Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Appendix A. Notice of Preparation A- I JJZl~ S.(,~r ~, O ` .f~~ S Y' H I 0 J c4tIFOR~xT pepartment of Economic and Community Development PLANNING DIVISION 6~0-/877-835 FAX 871-7083 December 4, 1997 NOTICE OF PREPARATION To: Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties and Organizations Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the South San Francisco General Plan Update The City of South San Francisco is preparing an update of its General Plan, and has determined that an EIR will be necessary. The City of South San Francisco requests your input regarding the scope and content of environmental information that is relevant to your respective agency's statutory/regulatory responsibilities in order to ascertain potential impacts of the proposed project. The City of South San Francisco, in compliance with CEQA, will direct the preparation of an environmental impact report for the project. The project description is provided in the attached Notice of Preparation (NOP). CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b) mandates each Responsible Agency to respond to an NOP within thirty days (30) after receipt. The review period will extend from December 15, 1997 through January 15, 1998. Please send your written response, with the name of your agency contact person, to Jim Hamish, Chief Planner , or Michael Lappen, Consulting Planner, at the following address: The City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Your views and comments on how the project may affect the environment are welcomed. Please contact Jim Harnish or Michael Lappen at (415) 877-8535 if you have any questions regarding this Notice of Preparation. Project Title: The City of South San Frandsco South San Francisco General Plan Update jim H Chief of P g City of South San Francisco t J Date 400 Grand A~~enue - P. O. Box 711 - 94083 NOTICE OF PREPARATION South San Francisco General Plan Update Project City of South San Francisco December 1997 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Notice of Preparation is to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to inform all interested parties that the City of South San Francisco intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City's General Plan Update. The General plan is currently being updated and developed. This notice is to request comments and guidance on the scope and the content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR PROJECT TITLE City of South San Francisco General Plan Update. PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES Location The City of South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The city is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. South San Francisco is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including US 101, Interstates I-280 and I-380, the Union Pacific Railroad (formerly owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad) main line, and the San Francisco International Airport. Sign Hill is a distinctive city landmark. The regional location of the city is shown in Figure 1. Planning Boundaries State law requires that each city adopt a general plan "for physical development of the county or ,. city, and any land outside its boundaries which .....bears relation to its planning. The Planning area for the General Plan includes all land within the city limits, and unincorporated "islands" surrounded by the city. Inclusion of unincorporated land in the Planning Area does not mean that the City is contemplating annexation; these sites are included in the General Plan for analysis and evaluation purposes only. Figure 2 shows the General Plan Planning Area. San Francisco Bay to the east and San Bruno Mountain to the north provide strong natural boundaries. The dties of Brisbane, Daly City, Colma, Pacifica, and San Bruno adjoin South San Francisco. MARIN Nou 6ef~ 0 4 8 MILES Walmu ~,,. 1 ~~ -' -~ ~ \ "~_> ,. ho .. - -., \ - \=i-= ~, j3~ N TA __ ~C I~A RA/ Figure 1 Regional Location i ' ^l f0 i _ / '~~' v = a I OG Q ' - ~ ¢ ! ~ ~ • ~ _ _ j s \ e I ~i i.. R l d U 1 \ ma ' , ~- c, 1 . ~ __ m ' ~ -~ _ h i= ~ ~ ' -- ~ . _. .. ' , f, `c \ _ _ ~- ~~ .~ ~ 1 i _ ~ r ~ ~ . _ ~,~-~- ~ _ , ~ ~ •~ ~ 1 3 ~ f-- ~ ' l f `~~ -~ ~~j ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ F ___~ _ _;__ _ ~ - -- '~ _. _ - ~ ~. a ~ n ° - _ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v J - ~ e E [ V I ~_e ~~ _ ~. 1. ~ , , t ~ • ~ _ __ , J .~ ° ac ~ a _ _ ~ .+ _ _ _ j ~ .~ --_---= _ . _ ~ J .~~ ~ L ~ l ~J O ~ _= .'f .~ _ '`„i ~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BACKGROUND 1. Name of Propoentent: City of South San Francisco 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: The City of South San Francisco pl~ng Division p0 Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 3. Date of checklist submitted: December 4,1997 4. Agency requiring checklist: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 5. Name of proposal, if applicable: City of South San Francisco, General Plan Update PROJECT DESCRIPTION The current South San Francisco General Plan ~ om~ nse ~e heart of the General P antwere last Land Use and Transportation Elements, wlv p comprehensively updated in 1986• Tlus of thee Housuie ElemenPrwhich wi be comprehensively of the General Plan, with the exception g updated at a later date. Topics addressed in the General Plan are likely to include: • Land Use • Transportation • Open Space and Conservation • Parks and Recreation • Public Facilities and Services • Safety • Urban Design • Economic Development • Noise Key objectives of the update process include: • preparing a consolidated and comprehensive General Plan that responds to the City's current planning context and its vision for the future; Ensuring that the Plan supports the City's objectives for economic development, and outlining an overall strategy for business expansion, retention, and community development: • Outlining strategies for revitalization of key infill areas. and effectively utilizing regional transit expansion opportunities; • Linking land use, transportation and infrastructure, and ensuring that Plan policies are mutually supportive, internally consistent and in accordance with state law; and • Providing a compendium of information that will be useful in implementing plan policies and preparing specific plans. Existing Conditions Evaluation As the first major step in the process, a report entitled South San Francisco General Plan Update: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues was published by the City in September 1997. Copies of this report, and a summary, are available at City of South San Francisco Department of Community and Economic Development (phone 415 877 8535). A short summary of the evaluation, and probable environmental effects of the General Plan update are included in the Appendix to this notice. CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors highlighted below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. For a discussion of the probable environmental effects, see Appendix "Surnmary of Existing Conditions Evaluation and Potential Environmental Effects". ^ Land Use and Planning ^ Transportation/ Circulation ^ Public Services ^ Population and Housing ^ Geological Problems ^ Water ^ ~ ~,~ty ^ Biological Resources ^ Energy and Mineral Resources ~ Hazards ~ Noise ^ Utilities and Service Systems ^ Aesthetics ^ Cultural Resources ^ Recreation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Federal and state laws currently require development projects to m;n;rr~e exposure to health hazards to a less-than significant level. In addition, State Uniform Building Code standards for earthquake safety must be adhered to as part of any construction or implementation process. New development or intensification of existing land uses will comply with these laws. The General Plan EIR will discuss these issues, as well as storm drainage, runoff, and hazardous materials. a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? -- - -x- b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? - - -x- c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? - -x- - d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? - - -x- e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? - - -x- f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? - - X- g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - -x- -- 2. Air. Will the proposal result in Air Quality is a regional issue, and several factors and state regulations pre-empt local authority. Nonetheless, the General Plan EIR will analyze the impact of projecfied growth and transportation demand on air quality a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? - - -x- b. The creation of objectionable odors? - - -x- c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? - -x- - 4 YES MAYBE NO 3, Water. Will the proposal result in: Water quality is a particular area of concern because of the ease of water pollution and the effect on pollution on nearshore wildlife habitat. While point sources of pollution are regulated through the NPDES permit process, nonpoint sources, such as urban ninoff into Colma Creek, are difficult to control. An additional water-related issue is the likelihood of a relatively high groundwater table in the eastern portion of the city, which is susceptible to pollution from current or past industrial uses. a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? - - -x- b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? - - -x- c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? - - -x- d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water may? - -x- - e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? - - -x- f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? - -x- - g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? - - -x- h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? - -x- - i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? - - -x- 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: South San Francisco's vegetative communities include annual grasslands, seasonal wetlands, fresh and saltwater a-arshes, mud flats and open water, as well as disturbed glasslands and significant stand of trees. Much of the vegetative area is landscaped. The EIR will consider the effect of growth and development in these azeas. a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants {including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? - - -x- 5 YES MAYBE NO b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _x_ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? x d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ _ _x_ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: The vegetative communities support a wide range of animal species, including several species under federal and state protection. There is very little vacant or unbuilt land in the city; virtually all special status species in the azea are found on San Bruno Mountain, located outside the Planning Area, and on Sign Hill, which is protected by the Habitat Conservation Plan. Potential location of sensitive species aze limited to marshes at the confluence of Colma Creek and the San Francisco Bay, which may also provide foraging areas. The EIR will consider the effect of growth and development in these azeas. a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, raze or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an azea, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: x - -x- - x - - -x- The City's agreement with San Francisco International Airport (SETA) precludes locating noise- sensitive uses east of US 101. However, noise-sensitive land uses in other parts of the city may be exposed to increased levels of growth-induced noise. The General Plan EIR will evaluate the noise environment in the city at buildout conditions. a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ _x_ _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ _x_ _ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ _ _x_ 6 YES MAYBE NO S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? - _x_ - With no opportunity for expansion and relatively little vacant land, new development is likely to result from reuse and intensification. The land use policies established in the General Plan will have along-term affect on the city and its economy in terms of institutional barriers or incentives for retaining and expanding different uses. In addition to meeting the needs of future users, the General Plan may provide for land use changes that benefit and protect existing residents and businesses. Following the update to the General Plan, changes to the city's zoning and other implementation ordinances and programs will be made to ensure consistency with the General Plan. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? - _x_ - b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? - - -x- 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: The General Plan EIR will consider the impact that development may have on public facilities and services, including emergency services and evacuation plans. a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? - - X_ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? - -x- - 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? - _x_ - The General Plan E1R will identify development resulting from the General Plan Update, and analyze the impacts of population and employment growth on infrastructure and other resources. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? - -x- - In 1992, the South San Francisco City Council adopted the General Plan Housing Element, which addres.5es housing issues associated with growth. The General Plan E1R will identify development resulting from the General Plan Update, and analyze the impacts of population and employment growth on the city's housing stock. 7 YES MAYBE NO 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: In general, South San Francisco's transportation system can adequately serve the existing travel demand. Most travel is conveyed by automobile and the roadway system within the city has the capacity to accommodate additional growth. However, regional plans indicate that traffic volumes on regional roadways that provide access to the city, US 101, and I-280, are projected to exceed their capacities during commute periods. The General Plan E1R will address impacts to both regional and local street networks resulting from the General Plan Update. In addition, methods of promoting alternative modes of transportation, such as Caltrain, BART, and supporting transit services to mitigate the impacts will be evaluated. a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ _x_ _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? - -x- - c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? - _x_ _ d. Alterations to present patterns of.circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ _x_ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ _ _x_ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ _x_ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: The General Plan EIR will identify development resulting from the General Plan Update, and analyze the impacts of the potential changes on public services. a. Fire protection? _ _x_ b. Police protection? _ _x_ c. Schools? - _x_ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _x_ _ f. Other governmental services? _ _x_ _ 8 YES MAYBE NO 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - - -x- b. Substantial inaease in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? - _ _x_ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial altezations to the following utilities: The General Plan EIR will identify development resulting from the General Plan Update, and analyze the impacts of potential changes in growth and development patterns on infrastructure. a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in x x x - -x- - x - -x- - Federal and state laws currently require development projects to m~n;m3e exposure to health hazards to a less-than significant level. in addition, State Uniform Building Code standards for earthquake safety must be adhered to as part of any construction or implementation process. New development or intensification of existing land uses will comply with these laws. The General Plan EIR will discuss these issues, as well as storm drainage, runoff, and hazardous materials. a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? - - -x- b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? - - -x- 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? - -x- - 'Ihe General Plan E1R will address implications that General Plan policies may have on the city's visual and aesthetic character. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality of quantity of existing recreational opportunities? - _x_ - 9 YES MAYBE NO The General Plan EIR will address any effects that the General Plan Update may have on park development, including the potential of increased demand for pazk area. 20. Cultural Resources. The General Plan EIR will address any effects that the General Plan Update may have on historic and cultural resources. Issues that may be considered include redevelopment in areas with historic structures, in-fill development, and growth in areas that have potential archeological sites. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic azcheological site? _ _x b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object. x c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ _x_ - d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact azea? x 21. 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 or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? - _x_ - b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) - - _x_ c. Does the project have impacts which aze individually limited, but cumulatively considerably? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - -x- - 10 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could have a new significant effect or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified "Potentially Significant Effects" on the environment and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be prepared to address impacts in the areas identified above: I ~1 ~~- zs 1 _~u,._.: ~ Date City ~ So~lth San Francisco Attachment: Appendix. Summary of Existing Conditions Evaluation and Potential Envirorunental Effects APPENDIX SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS EVALUATION AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Background and Context .................................................................... ......................................1 2. Population and Households ................................................................ ......................................1 3. Land Use "" 2 4. Urban Design ..................................................................................... ......................................3 5. Transportation .................................................................................... ......................................3 6. Public Facilities and Services ........................................................... .......................................4 7. Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Schools .................................... .......................................4 8. ................................................................. Environmental Resources .......................... •••••'°""'S 9. Safety ........... ..................................................................................... .......................................6 10. Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................... .......................................7 11. Air Quality ...................................8 12. ................................................................................................. Noise .......................8 ................ SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS EVALUATION AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT South San Francisco's history is a story of transformation, from a bucolic dairy pasture to a center for meat packing and heavy industry to an emerging high tech, office and biotech core. A combination of factors have fed industrial growth in South San Francisco over time - excellent location, ever-improving transportation access, and the deliberate development of housing and services to provide for a nearby labor force. South San Francisco has also evolved as a residential community. Where once the residential and commercial portion of the city was a company town for the "beef trust" packers on Point San Bruno, today only 23 percent of employed residents work in the city. Improved transportation access and extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco into a commuter suburb. The desirable future link between jobs in South San Francisco and employed residents is an issue that may be explored in the General Plan process. Some of the effects of South San Francisco's growth history that aze still apparent in the city today include: • The city's continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to San Francisco International Airport, but echoing its role as the central distribution point for the Peninsula in the 1920s and 1930s; • The presence of large tracts of land, formerly used for heavy industry and currently zoned for a variety of industry and research and development uses, east of US 101; • Extensive single-use areas of residential and industrial development; • Relatively old housing stock built during the explosive period of postwar growth. South San Francisco essentially reached the limits of its expansion potential with the development of Westborough community, located at the western edge of the city, in the 1970s and the recent development of the multi-phased Terrabay subdivision on the south slope of San Bruno Mountain; future growth will likely stem from internal change and redevelopment, rather than outward expansion. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS South San Francisco's fastest period of growth was during World Waz II and the postwar period, when the population increased from 6,000 to over 39,000, fueled by extensive annexation and residential subdivision. Growth has slowed considerably in recent decades, although the growth rate is expected to increase as Terrabay is completed and other planned residential development occurs. The population is projected to increase by 21 percent between 1996 and 2020, from 57,608 to 69,900. ABAG projects that most of the growth will occur in the near term as the supply of land available for residential development is exhausted. Potential Environmental Impacts The EIR will identify development resulting from the General Plan, and analyze the impacts of population and employment growth on infrastructure and other resources. 3. LAND USE South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decisions to initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Extensive residential development occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city, single family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. South San Francisco's city limits encompass 4,298 acres. Like many communities, single family residences are the most predominant land use, occupying 33 percent of the land in the city. However, industrial uses, including warehouses, manufacturing areas and business parks, also comprise over a quarter of South San Francisco's area. 1997 Existing Land U se AGproved ~aarY ~ a% a~dau~~ ~o% F~rtc and open ~ ~~ r,a~v~ F~sden6al ~~~ ,.aT~r~roal South San Francisco has high residential densities. The average net density is 8.2 units per acre for single family areas and 33.1 units per acre for multiple family areas, for a citywide 2 average of 10.7 units per net acre. The city is characterized by an absence of "large lot" residential areas, and many homes are on lots of 5,000 square feet, including in the hillsides. Potential Environmental Impacts With no opportunity for expansion and relatively little vacant land, new development is likely to result from reuse and intensification. The land use policies established in the General Plan will have along-term affect on the city and its economy in terms of institutional barriers or incentives for retaining and expanding different uses. In addition to meeting the needs of future users, the General Plan may provide for land use changes that benefit and protect existing residents and businesses. Following the update to the General Plan, changes to the City's zoning, potential redevelopment plan amendments, and other implementing ordinances and programs will be made to ensure consistency with the General Plan. 4. URBAN DESIGN South San Francisco's urban form-from elements such as street grid patterns and block sizes, to the character of buildings and street design in different parts of the city-is strongly evocative of the City's evolution and development pattern. Few azeas have been transformed since they were first developed, providing insight into the basis behind the City's physical characteristics. Changes currently taking place, including the evolution of the East of 101 area and the BART extension to South San Francisco, may provide the opportunity to physically redefine key areas of the community. South San Francisco's edges are well-defined by geographic features such as hills and San Francisco Bay. Corridors play an extremely important role in defining the City's form. Freeways and major arterials serve to fragment the city into four major segments -the area west of Junipero Serra (Westborough), between Junipero Serra and El Camino Real, the area between El Camino Real and US 101, and the azea east of US 101. Connections between these different city segments are extremely limited. Potential Environmental Impacts The EIR will address implications that General Plan policies may have on the City's visual and aesthetic character 5. TRANSPORTATION The transportation system serving South San Francisco is comprised of the roadway system, transit and public transportation, and alternative modes including informal carpools, formal vanpools, employer-sponsored shuttles, bicycling and walking. South San Francisco is served by two major north-south freeways, US 101 and I-280 and is also close to I-380 nuuiing east- west. Asystem of surface streets collects and distributes traffic to and from the freeways and between the commercial, industrial, and residential areas of the city. Commuter rail service is provided between South San Francisco and San Francisco to the north and San Jose/Gilroy to the south. Additional passenger rail service will be provided to South San Francisco by the BART extension. Local bus service is currently provided to areas of South San Francisco west of US 101. The transit needs of the East of 101 area are served with shuttle buses to and from nearby Caltrain and BART stations during commute hours only. Opportunities for future transit service to this area include the proposed Airport Light Rail (ART) System, being constructed as part of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) expansion. At present, few bicycle facilities are located in South San Francisco. Possible future facilities include the Bay Trail, a linear park on the BART extension right-of--way, and aneast-west link between the two in the East of 101 area. Potential Environmental Impacts In general, South San Francisco's transportation system can adequately serve the existing travel demand. Most travel is conveyed by automobile and the roadway system within the city has capacity to accommodate additional growth. However, regional plans indicate that traffic volumes on regional roadways that provide access to the city, US 101 and I-280, are projected to exceed their capacities during commute periods. The General Plan EIR will address impacts to both regional and local street networks resulting from the General Plan Update. In addition, methods of promoting alternative modes of transportation, such as Caltrain, BART, and supporting transit services (SamTrans feeder buses and shuttle buses) to mitigate the impacts will be evaluated. 6. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Water, sewer, and waste collection systems as they currently exist or as planned should be able to accommodate future growth in South San Francisco. The most important infrastructure improvement that will occur over the next several years is the expansion of the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant to its maximum allowable capacity of 13 million gallons per day (MGD). Water use and wastewater generation aze closely connected, particularly for industrial operations. South San Francisco's industries use large quantities of water, particularly for biotechnology-related manufacturing. Without significant overhaul of systems and processes, extensive industrial water conservation could be difficult. The high industrial water use levels are particulazly problematic in terms of wastewater generation; if the capacity of the expanded sewage treatment plant is exhausted, future expansion may not be possible under federal and state requirements. Potential Environmental Impacts The General Plan EIR will consider the impact that development may have on public facilities and services, including wastewater, water, and solid waste disposal. 4 7. PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND SCHOOLS From both land use and operational perspectives, parks and schools are closely coordinated in South San Francisco. Parks aze often located adjacent to school facilities, and programs organized by the Parks and Recreation Department regularly use school facilities for events, sports activities, child care, and classes. parks, Open Space, and Recreation South San Francisco currently provides its residents with a full range of open space and recreational opportunities, contained on 286.05 acres of park, open space, and school recreation facility land. However, the community may not have sufficient park acreage to serve its population; although the overall open space supply of 5.01 acres per, 1,000 residents is adequate, only 0.99 acres of developed parkland, excluding school athletic fields, are available per 1,000 residents. Little potential land is available in the most underserved neighborhoods. The City has begun to address these deficiencies through acquisition and development of surplus school land. Schools The South San Francisco Unified School District operates ten elementary schools, three middle schools and three high schools, as well as other specialized programs and services. The District also owns three surplus school sites, one of which it may sell. Currently, no schools are operating at or over their student capacity; however, student population projections indicate that the capacity of the existing school system is likely to be reached or exceeded during the General Pian horizon. Capacity limitations may be exacerbated by the recent State-directed class size reduction efforts. Potential Environmental Impacts The EIR will address any effects that the General Plan Update may have on park and school development, including the potential of increased demand for parks and schools. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Despite a century of urban development and bay fill, South San Francisco supports remnant areas of high biological value including San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill, wetlands and Bay communities, and scattered grasslands and scrub vegetation. Many of these areas are protected under regional, state and federal legislation. For example, Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain are protected by Habitat Conservation Plans. While the City adheres to the policies in such plans, future development may continue to deplete those biological resources unprotected by conservation plans. 5 Vegetation and Wildlife South San Francisco's vegetative communities include annual grasslands, seasonal wetlands, fresh and saltwater marshes, and mud flats and open water, as well as disturbed grasslands and significant stands of trees. Much of the vegetative area is landscaped. The communities support habitat for a wide range of animal species, including several species under federal and state protection. The best-known of these "special status species" are the threatened and endangered butterflies on San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill. Primary threats to vegetative communities in the city include: • Further intrusion of urban development into wildlife habitat areas; • Non-native vegetation originally introduced as landscaping, such as French broom, eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress, which currently threaten habitat for threatened and endangered plant and animal species within the city; and • Toxic contaminants from commercial/industrial facilities that could result in substantial risks to sensitive waters and nearshore communities of the Bay. Water Quality Water quality is a particular area of concern because of the ease of water pollution and the effects of pollution on nearshore wildlife habitat. While point sources of pollution are regulated through the NPDES permit process, nonpoint sources, such as urban runoff into Colma Creek, are difficult to control. An additional water-related issue is the likelihood of a relatively high groundwater table in the eastern portion of the city, which is susceptible to pollution from current or past industrial uses. Potential Environmental Impacts There is very little vacant or unbuilt land in the City; virtually all special status species in the area are found on San Bruno Mountain, located outside the Planning Area, and on Sign Hill, which is protected by a Habitat Conservation Plan. Potential location of sensitive species are limited to marshes at the confluence of Colma Creek and the Bay, which may also provide foraging areas. The EIR will consider the effect of growth and development on these areas. 9. SAFETY Fire Hazards Many areas of open space within the city pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding resources. Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, overgrown vegetation and inadequate infrastructure (poor access and inadequate local water supply) contribute to fire risk in individual locations. Access for fire and other safety personnel is good in areas other than the Sign Hill and Dundee Management units, with the exception of the currently undeveloped Koll property on Sierra Point. This site can presently only be reached by passing through the portion of Sierra s Point that is within Brisbane. Development on the Koll property may require access improvements. Hazardous >Vfaterials and Waste Hazardous waste and hazardous ma±erials are regularly transported through South San Francisco and used in the city, creating a potential hazard for residents and workers. In addition, industries and businesses generate a significant amount of hazardous waste. The storage and disposal of this waste determines the hazard that they represent; there are several seriously contaminated sites in the city, and in excess of 100 sites that have leaking underground storage tanks or are otherwise impaired. Flooding Runoff in the city is directed to Colma Creek. Because the city is highly urbanized, runoff is relatively high, increasing the potential for flood conditions in periods of heavy rainfall. The principal flooding problems exist near the eastern edge of the city where flows of Colma Creek are limited by passage under the Caltrain railroad tracks and US 101. In addition, many homes in South San Francisco may be exposed to flood hazards because they are constructed with the floor level at ground surface, lacking sufficient elevation to remain above even shallow flooding. Geology and Seismicity While most of South San Francisco is comprised of flat to gently sloping areas, steep hillsides surround the northern. and western portions of the city. The San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire city, creating potential for ground rupture and high levels of ground shaking. Most of the city would experience an intensity level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude. Portions of the city with unstable soil conditions, particularly the fill areas in the east, would experience particularly strong ground shaking. Other faults in the region may also generate earthquakes that affect South San Francisco. Buildings constructed prior to the 1970s in most cases would not meet current design provisions in the Uniform Building Code for earthquake forces. Potential Environmental Impacts Federal and state laws currently require development projects to minimize exposure to health hazards to a less-than significant level. In addition, State Uniform Building Code standards for earthquake safety must be adhered to as part of any construction or implementation process. New development or intensification of existing land uses will comply with these laws. The General Plan EIR will discuss these issues, as well as storm drainage, runoff, and hazardous materials. 10. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES South San Francisco's history is notable for the close relationship of industrial and community growth. The development of a residential town to support new industrial plants was a calculated strategy of local industrialists. In turn, success of the city's industries gave South San Francisco an important role in the region. Historic and cultural resources in South San Francisco are protected through the process of local designation and subsequent oversight by the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition to Sign Hill, the City's only national historic landmark, South San Francisco's designated resources include several residential and commercial buildings in the downtown area. Evidence of South San Francisco's earliest residents can also be found in the city, in various Native American shell mounds and middens. There are several known archaeological sites in areas slated for growth; proper measures for their protection will continue to occur under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Potential Environmental Impacts The EIR will address possible impacts that the General Plan Update may have on historic and cultural resources. Issues that may be considered include redevelopment in areas with historic structures, and growth in areas that have potential archeological sites. 11. AIR QUALITY Three types of air pollutants affect air quality in South San Francisco: criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and odors and nuisances. Criteria air pollutants generally occur at~the regional level, and the Ciry's ability to regulate the pollutants is preempted by state and regional requirements. Toxic air contaminants and odors and dust are more localized; the land use planning implications of pollution control vary based on the scale of impact. The Bay Area's air quality is influenced largely by motor vehicle use. Automobile ownership and use are increasing at faster rates than population growth. However, the trend towards a newer, cleaner vehicle mix will serve to counteract some of the negative air quality impact associated with increased vehicle use. This may result in a net reduction in the emissions of ozone precursors and carbon monoxide, while particulate matter emissions may increase into the future. Potential Enviroamental Impacts Air quality is a regional issue, and several federal and state regulations pre-empt local authority. Nonetheless, the General Plan EIR wii: analyze the impact of projected growth and transportation demand on air quality. s 12. NOISE South San Francisco is highly susceptible to noise impacts in almost all parts of the city, owing to the presence of major noise generators such as San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), US 101 and Interstate 280, and extensive industrial uses. South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a large portion of departures from SFIA. The SFIA Airport Land Use Plan, prepared by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, identifies standards for different types of development in areas impacted by aircraft noise. These standards have been adopted by South San Francisco. The City has joined other San Mateo County jurisdictions in a Memorandum of Understanding with SFIA for aircraft noise mitigation efforts. Development in noise- impacted areas is further regulated by the Agreement for Aircraft Noise Mitigation between the City and SFIA, which prohibits development of noise sensitive uses east of US 101 and addresses the retrofitting of sensitive uses affected by airport noise. Locally-generated noise includes traffic along freeways and major streets and industrial facilities. Noise-generating industrial uses are currently regulated under the City's Noise Element. Potential Environmental Impacts The City's agreement with SFIA precludes locating noise-sensitive uses east of US 101. However, noise-sensitive land uses in other parts of the city may be exposed to increased levels ofgrowth-induced noise. The General Plan EIR will evaluate the noise environment in the city at buildout conditions. s Appendix B: Comments Received on the NOP Draft Environmental Impact Repori for Souih San Francisco General Plan Update Appendix B. Comments Received on the NOP B-I Cali f oynia Native Pant Society Yerba Buena Chapter 338 Ortega Street, San Francisco, California 94122 19 December 1997 Jim Harnish, Chief Planner City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue PO Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94083 RE: General Plan Dear Mr. Harnish: RE~E~VE DAD 2 21997 p~pNNtN~ We would like to offer the following comments to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Items 7 (Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Schools) and 8 (Environmental Resources) in the Appendix: We are gratified to see the city recognize the high biological value of Sign Hill. We have long been of the opinion that this is anunder-appreciated and under-used resource of great value to the citizens of the city and northern San Mateo County . It represents a surviving piece of the original landscape that we have inherited from millions of years of evolution. As such it has value for schools and the public as an outdoor classroom, in addition to its other values as open space, passive recreation, and wildlife habitat. You note annual grasslands as one vegetative community; Sign Hill also contains several dozen acres of high-quality native perennial grasslands. These perennial grasses are known for their ability to bind the soil and hold it against erosion. This kind of community has become rare in the Bay Area. We would take issue with the statement that "...Sign Hill...(is) protected by (a) Habitat Conservation Plan..." Presently there is no Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Sign Hill, but future development would fall under the terms of the San Bruno Mountain (SBM) HCP or a similar plan. Because the federally- listed mission blue butterfly has been reported fmm the hill, any future developer will have to either enter into an agreement to abide by the terms of the SBM HCP and make payments into the HCP fund, or go through the habitat conservation planning process independently. The probability is that a developer would choose the first course; either way, it would involve destruction of habitat in order to effect development. This is not protection. It is our hope that the entire hill remaining as open space will be retained as `'~~SIY~ ~~l :Dedicated to the preservation o f Cali f oynia native f fora open space in perpetuity and managed for its natural values. The healthiest areas and those of the highest biological value are, ironically, privately-owned land on the north side of the hill. We are pleased the city has recognized the threat to vegetative communities posed by invasive non-native plants: French broom, eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress. All of these plants are present on Sign Hill and are expanding their range and invading grasslands through seedling regeneration. They are a threat not only to the natural values, including the mission blue butterfly, but a fire hazard to surrounding homes; grass fires are cool fires but when they ignite trees, especially those containing resins, they can easily escape control. It would be desirable for the city to have along- range plan to remove or control these weedy trees. Some of these same weeds, plus others such as fennel and pampas grass, are spreading up the slopes of San Bruno Mountain from the Terrabay development, which exacerbated conditions for those weeds already present; other new ones were introduced following ground disturbance for the development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the General Plan. Sincerely, Jacob Sigg, Chair Conservation Committee c US Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District Greenbelt Alliance Trust for Public Land CrrY of SourH Snty FRaivclsco Poucl` D~at'zrlu~xr Memo Ta Mike Lappen Planning Division prom: Sergeant Michael Massoni CC: p~ December 19, 1997 Rm Review of the City General Plan Environmental Impact Report After review of the referenced document Police Planning staff is still uncomfortable with the General Plan Update. Specifically the elimination of Police Department concerns and input on the safety element of the General Plan. The General Plan update should include an expanded safety element and the Police Department should have the right to provide input on issues that have an impact of Police services specfically: • Per capita ratios of Police Officers to increases in Residential Population. • Minimum acceptable response time for major and typical call for service requests. • Minimum acceptable levels of service for roadways within the city. • Assurance that the .principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (OPTED) and Police Urban Planning is included in future developments. • Inclusion of Police concerns when developing policy statements on negative impact uses. The same types of comments on these issues have been made in the recent past and have been ignored. The ~ Police Department has existing documentation and comments on all of the listed issues as well as suggested areas of concern for future zone related policy statements. i~~~,~~~~~~~ ~~,~, Sergeant Michael assoni Planning Liaison .~, • PETE WILSON. Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THIRTY VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2011 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-6080 PHONE: (415) 557-3686 December 22, 1997 Michael Lappen, Consulting Planner City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94083 SUBJECT Francisoco General Plan Upa e BCDC Inquu'y Noa SM. ~ 661p lof South San Dear Mr. Lappen: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Prepazation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of South San Francisco General Plan Update. Although the Commission itself has not had an opportunity to review the NOP, the following aze staff comments based on the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan, the Commission's laws and policies. The Commission has both San Francisco Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction in the City of South San Francisco. The landward extent of the Commission's Bay jurisdiction is the mean high tide line. The shoreline band jurisdiction is then measured 100 feet inland and parallel to the mean high tide line. The San Francisco Bay Plan Map No. 9 identifies portions of the shoreline as a waterfront pazk priority use azea. The Commission would be interested in any general plan changes or revisions that affect the Bay or shoreline band. The DEIR should clearly descnbe what general plan revisions or changes fall within the Commission's jurisdiction. In general, the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan require that new uses or development and changes in uses within the 100-foot-shoreline band provide the maximum feasible public access consistent with the project. The Bay Plan policies on public access articulate how public access should be provided. The McAteer-Petris Act also requires that any fill placed in San Francisco Bay be for water-oriented uses or minor fill to improve shoreline appearance or public access, that there be no alternative upland available for the uses, and that the fill be the minimum amount necessary. The DEIR should describe how the general plan update would be consistent with the Commission's laws and policies. To assist you, I am enclosing a copy of the San Francisco Bay Plan and the McAteer-Petris Act. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (415) 557-8774. Sincerely, JEFFREY G. JENSEN Coastal Planner JGJ SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Thirty Van Ness Avenue • Suite 2011 • San Francisco, California 94102 • (415) 557.3686 Fnx: (415) 557.3767 THE McATEER-PETRIS ACT ,4s mnerrded through the 1995 Legis/atlve Sessloa California Govcmment Codc 66600-66682 The McAteer-Petris Act, which created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, was enacted September 17, 1965, in response to widespread public concern over the future of San Francisco Bay. The Act required the Commission to prepare "a comprehensive and enforceable plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline: ' In 1969, the Commission submitted the completed San Francisco Bay Plan to the Governor and the Legislature. After Legislative review and approval, the McAteer- Petris Act was amended to incorporate the findings and policies of the Bay Plan. On August 7, 1969, the Govemor signed the revised Act into law. Subsequent amendments were made as follows: Acts of the 1970 Regular Session of the Legislature (e,8`ective November 23, 1970): Chapter 998 (AB 1200) Changed the date in Section 66611. Chapter 1179 (AB 1771) Added a second paragraph to Section 66622. Chapter 1279 (AB ] 771) Added Subdivision (e) to Section 66610. Acts of the 1971 Regular Session of the Legislature (e~`ecrive March 4, 1972): Ctt~ter 1339 (SB 1533) Changed the representative to the Commission from HEW to EPA in Section 66620(b). Added to second pazagraph to Section 66632(x) to authorize the Commission to change permit filing and processing fees of government agencies. Chapter 1639 (AB 1860) Added third paragraph to Section 66632(x), making violation of Act a irusdemeanor. Acts of the 1972 Regular Session of the Legislature (e,~`ecrive March 7, 1973): Chapter 373 (SB 34) Amended Sections 66611 and 66652 to authorize change of adopted boundaries of water~riented priority uses within the 100-foot shoreline band, under specified conditions. Chapter 607 (SB 793) Amended Section 66610 to place portions of Corte Madera Creek within BCDC's jurisdiction. Chapter 651 (SB 181) Amended Section 66622 with regard to alternates to county representative on BCDC. SAN FRANgSCO 6AY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMEM COMMl~iSION Thirty Van Ness Avenue • Suite 2011 San Francisco, California 94102 • (415) 557-3686 Fix: (415) 557-3767 t~ July 31, 1996 TU: All Interested Parties FROM : Will Travis, Executive Director SUBJECT: Bay Pian Amendments Attached are the amendments to the San Francisco Bay Plan since December 1988, the last printing of the Bay Plan. The amendments are as follows: 1. Bay Pian Amendment No. 1-88: adding new language to the Bay Plan port policies and changing Bay Plan maps as a result cf updating the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. 2. Bay Pian Amendment No. 3-88: adding findings and policies on relative sea level rise to the Safety of Fills section. 3. Boy Plan Amendment No. 3-88: adding new findings and policies concerning shoreline protection in a new section of the San Francisco Bay Plan entitled "Protection of the Shoreline." 4. Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-89: amending the findings and policies on transportation. 5. Bay Pfan Amendment No. 1-90: amending the San Francisco Waterfront Total Design Plan. 6. Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-91: deleting the waterfront park priority use designation from Pierce Island in Suisun Slough, Suisun City, Solano County. 7. Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-91: amending the San Francisco Bay Plan dredging findings and policies. 8. Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-93: deleting and adding port priority and marine terminal site designations for certain small parcels at the Oakland Inner Harbor. 9. Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-93: deleting port priority use designation from certain lands inland from Piers 52 to 64 in San Francisco. 10. Bay Pian Amendment No. 1-94: amending the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan and San Francisco Bay Plan regarding the Water-Related Industry Reserve Area and the Water- Related Industry and Port Priority Use at Collinsville, Solano County. 11. Bay Pian Amendment No. 1-95: deleting airport priority use designation from Hamilton Air Field in Marin County. San Francisco Bay. Plan .~ San Francisco ~s~nservation Bay and Development Commission ~a~~~r~ ~ ° og as amena~i December 31, 1997 Mr. Jim Harnish Chief of Planning City of South San Francisco Planning Division PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Deaz Mr. Harnish, CITY OF BRISBANE 50 PARK LANE Brisbane, California 94005 (415) 467-1515 FAX (415) 467-4989 \~ ~ AGE _b he~~ ~P PNN\NG Q~ The City of Brisbane appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the update of the City of South San Francisco General Plan. I note that you plan to complete a comprehensive update, much as the City of Brisbane did in 1994. I would appreciate receiving a copy of the report described in the Notice, "South San Francisco General Plan Update: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues" that was published in September 1997 and is summarized as an Appendix to the NOP. The City of Brisbane's General Plan speaks directly to the need for a cooperative relationship between our two agencies, since we shaze common boundaries, traffic and circulation corridors, and have common development concerns at Sierra Point. In that regazd, we are especially interested in your General Plan goal to link "land use, transportation and infrastructure." Our cities are also subject to the same regional pressures and environmental concerns: the effect of the airport expansion, gridlock on Highway 101, the need to preserve the remaining open space and the endangered species on San Bruno Mountain. We would like your General Plan and EIR to address traffic and circulation issues on Bayshore Boulevard, the Oyster Point overcrossing and the planned installation of the hookramps and the proposed flyover to the east of 101 area. These improvemenu should be shown in the transportation element and a reasonable timeline given for all anticipated improvements. You have recently discussed some type of emergency access between Bay West Cove and Sierra Point, which should be evaluated as well. We are interested in the proposed land use designation for the portion of Sierra Point in South San Francisco and would like some evaluation in terms of compatibility with the Master Plan and Development Agreement that governs the Brisbane portion of the site. Issues of access and infrastructure for your land at Sierra Point must also be addressed. San Bruno Mountain should be given a great deal of attention in both the Open Space and Conservation Elements and we hope that some commitment is made to cooperative efforts at preservation and the control of exotic and invasive species. I enjoyed meeting with you recently and providing information on Brisbane's policies and anticipated development. Please do not hesitate to call if I can provide further information or assist your efforts in any way. .~~ Sixtrerely, ~ ~ j~ ' ~ / ~~:~` L~ CAROLE G. NE N Director of Pl ning and Building STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENC! FETE WILSON Goremor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1416 NINTH STREET F.oC. sox 9uO2o9 (916j ~5 9338" Cn 942aa-2090 January 12, 1998 Jim Harnish Chief of Planning City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Harnish, ;" RECEt~IE~ •= • JA"I , 4 ~~-~s PLANNING The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed your Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report that describes an update to the City of South San Francisco's General Plan (SCH 97122030). An updated General Plan for the City of South San Francisco would include the following objectives: support for economic development, strategies for revitalization of key areas of the city, and utilization of regional transit expansion opportunities. The primary objective of the DFG's review of environmental documents is to be able to provide the project sponsor with recommendations for avoiding or minimizing negative impacts to fish and wildlife, their use and users. In attempting to meet this objective, our attention is usually focused upon potential habitat damage or loss, acute or chronic effects to fish and wildlife from changes in habitat quality, and possible use conflicts. The DFG is a responsible agency in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. In our review of your DEIR, we will need to be able to identify and evaluate all activities within the updated General Plan which may impact fish and wildlife populations or their habitats, energy supplies, and reproductive requirements. We will also need to be aware of how and where the updated General Plan would modify opportunities for use and enjoyment of those living resources by the people of the State. Existing fish and wildlife populations, habitat uses and types, and human uses such as fishing, clamming, or nature study in and adjacent to project areas contained in the General Plan should be identified and described. Any potential impacts which relate to these resource values should also be thoroughly described, and discussed in conjunction with compensation for unavoidable, project-induced losses. It is the policy of the DFG that a project should cause no net loss of wetland acreage or wetland habitat value. If direct impacts to fish and wildlife are identified within the General Plan, compensation for these impacts should be proposed in the form of habitat replacement, restoration, and improvement. Water quality problems which should be addressed include: sewage, litter, petroleum products, cleaning agents, pesticides, and any other toxic or oxidizable materials which may enter the water as result of any projects associated with the updated General Plan. Special considerations must be given in the DEIR to adverse impacts which may occur to rare, threatened, or endangered species. Information regarding these species, and potential impacts, can be procured from the appropriate federal (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) and state (DFG) resource agencies. As always, DFG personnel are available to discuss our concerns and comments in greater detail. To arrange for discussion, please contact Ms. Becky Ota, Associate Marine Biologist, Califomia Department of-Fish and Game, Arlarine Resources Laboratory, 411 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025, telephone (650) 688-8361. Sincerely, UY-~ Donald L. Lollock, Chief Scientific Division Office of Spill Prevention and Response cc: Ms. Nadel) Gayou Projects Coordinator Resources Agency Sacramento, Califomia Ms. Becky T. Ota Department of Fish anci Game Menlo Park, Califomia JA~~tu :3 CCAG Pt.ANNiNG CITY/COtnvTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVEIWMENrS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ,ltlurson • Belnwnt • Brisbane • Burlingame • CoGna • Daly ary • Fast Palo Alto • Fosur (Sry • HaljMoon Bay • HIILsborough • Menlo Park • MiUbrac Pacifica • Portola Valley • RedM~ood ary • San Bruno • San Carlos • Son Mauo • San Mauo Coun+Y • South San Francisco • Woodside PLEASE REPLY TO: Lisa Aozasa, ALUC Staff, 590 Hamilton Street, Second Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063; Phone: 650/363-4852; FAX: 650/363-4849 January 12, 1998 Jim Harnish, Chief Planner City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Harnish: RE: C/CA~irport Landse Coma Pre~ar€~#n of an E1~nmental Fr.~ticis~~~~eneral:~i Update C/CAG Airp~t Land TS~Coe (AL document a~t~~~i~as th~~~~i`~c~~iz otice of rth San 1. Noise ,., _. :: :> :;: . ;~. ~~~ ~ .~ .. II :`': ~ ~ . ~~' h'` '' ist t~ ~ °,.:~Q~: ~;...e:~6 o~~thdvii~o#~ent~.:C ec~I , t3' >:::.s~ate P g agreefrient with San Francisco Internaa oet 1 ~ of U S~lO1,~Howeverblmuch of the n of noise sensitive land uses (residen ) remainder of the City lies in the flight path of a large portion of aircraft departures from SFIA and potential increase in noise exposure should be thoroughly evaluated in the EIR. Specifically, much of the City is within the 65 CNEL noise contour as shown on the 198? SFIA Noise Exposure Map contained in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for SFIA. The CLUP deems noise sensitive land uses to be "conditionally compatible" in this area, and any new construction or development should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. If the General Plan Update proposes noise sensitive land uses for these areas, the EIR should also identify appropriate mitigation measures to ensure auportlland use compatibility. 2. Land Use/Airsvace Protection As stated on page 7 of the Environmental Checklist, new development in the City is likely to result from reuse and intensification of existing land uses. Again, since much of ~o Twua Do[,PHna DRIVE. SUITE C-200. ~wooD CTIY, CA 94065-1036 PHONE: 415.599.1406 FAX: 415.594.9980 Letter to Jim Harnish, Chief Planner, City of South San Francisco, Re: Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the City of South San Francisco General Plan Update January 12, 1998 Page 2 the City lies in the flight path of a large portion of aircraft departures from SFIA, the height of proposed new development is a potential environmental issue to be discussed in the EIR. Specifically, the Airport Land Use Commission has adopted the Federal Aviation Regulation FAR Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace" imaginary surfaces to establish height restrictions for natural and man-made objects in the vicinity of SFIA. The purpose of these imaginary surfaces is to protect the airspace in the vicinity of the Airport from objects or structures that may affect the safety of aircraft in flight. As stated in the CLUP for SFIA, any proposed new construction or expansion of existing structures that would penetrate any of the FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces for SFIA maybe deemed incompatible. If the General Plan Update proposes land uses and height allowances that may affect the imaginary surfaces, the EIR should identify appropriate mitigation measures to ensure airportlland use compatibility. 3. Review of the General Plan Update by the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG1 The proposed project consists of a general plan amendment. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65302.3, this land use policy action requires review by the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG) for a determination of consistency with the relevant provisions in the CLUP for SFIA. The proposed action will first be reviewed by the C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC). The review process will take about 60 days to complete from the date of acceptance by ALUC Staff. Please contact me as soon as possible to coordinate this review. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the City of South San Francisco General Plan Update. If you have any questions, please contact me at 650/363-4852. Sincerely, ~,w ~3~~ Lisa Aozasa ALUC Staff cc: ALUC Members Rich Napier, C/CAG Executive Director ssfnop.air Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmeniol Impact Report for Souih Son Francisco General Plan Update A endix C. Glossary Of Terms PP 100-Year Flood. That flood event that has cone- percent chance of occurrence in any one year. Acoustical Engineer. An engineer specializing in the measurement and physical properties of sound. In environmental review, the acoustical engineer measures noise impacts of proposed projects and designs measures to reduce those impacts. Acoustics. The physical qualities of a room, enclosure, or space (such as size, shape, and amount of noise) that determine the audibility and perception of sound. Acre, Gross. Area of a site calculated to the centerline of bounding streets and other public rights-of-way. Acre, Net. The portion of a site that can actually be built upon. Not included in the net acreage of a site are public or private road rights-of--way, public open space, and flood ways. Ambient Conditions. Initial background concentration sensed/measured at a monitoring/sampling site, as in air quality or noise. Aquifer. A natural underground formation that is saturated with water, and from which water can be withdrawn. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). A federal agency responsible for the design and implementation of publicly supported engineering projects. Any construction activity that involves filling a watercourse, pond, lake (natural or man-made), or wetlands (including seasonal wetlands and vernal pools), may require an ACOE permit. ART. Airport Rail Transit system. Light rail to move people and luggage between buildings, terminals, major employment locations, and parking areas within San Francisco International Airport. Arterials. A vehicular right-of--way whose primary function is to carry through traffic in a continuous route across an urban area while also providing some access to abutting land. Major arterials are typically divided (have raised medians), have more travel lanes, and carry more traffic than minor arterials. Major arterials in the city include El Camino Real (State Route 82), Sisters Cities Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue. Minor c-i Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update arterials do not have divided or raised medians; examples include Mission Road and Orange Avenue. ADT. Average daily traffic. Attainment Area. An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than federal or State air quality standards as defined in the federal Clean Air Act or the California Clean Air Act. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and anon-attainment area for others. Auto-oriented Uses. Land uses designed to accommodate customers who use autos to travel to the site, including automobile sales and service, building supplies and materials and drive- up or drive-through uses. Average Daily Traffic (ADT). The number of vehicles passing a given point on a road going in a direction during a 24-hour period. BART. Bay Area Rapid Transit. Bike Lanes (Class II facilities). Lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of bicycles, so designated with special signing and pavement markings. Bike Paths (Class I facilities). Paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways used by motor vehicles by space or a physical barrier and are designated for bicycle use. Bike Routes (Class III facilities). Roadways are roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes are designated with signs. Biotic Diversity. Species diversity - i.e., number of different species occurring in a location or under some condition. Buildout. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum probable level of development envisioned by the General Plan under specified assumptions about densities and intensities. Buildout does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations. CAI. California Archaeological Inventory. C-2 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update CalTrans. California Department of Transportation. Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The multi-year scheduling of public physical improvements based on studies of fiscal resources available and the choice of specific improvements to be constructed. Carbon Monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless gas, formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels, which is toxic because of its tendency to reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. CMP. Congestion Management Program, San Mateo County Collectors. Streets that connect arterials with local streets, and provide access and circulation within neighborhoods. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). A 24-hour energy equivalent level derived from a variety of single-noise events, with weighting factors of 5 and 10 dB applied to the evening (7:00 to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) periods, respectively, to allow for the greater sensitivity to noise during those hours. An alternative measure is day-night average sound level (Ldn), the A-weighted average sound level for a given area (measured in decibels) during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB weighting applied to nighttime sound levels. The Ldn is approximately numerically equal to the CNEL for most environmental settings. Community-sized Shopping Centers. A shopping center on a 20- to 40-acre site, with 200,000 to 400,000 square feet of space serving a trade area population of 40,000 to 150,000. Tenants typically include a junior department store and large variety or chain drug store. Conservation. The management of natural resources to prevent waste, destruction, or neglect. Critical Facility. Facilities having a vital role in a potential emergency, the failure of which might prove catastrophic. Culvert. A drain, ditch or conduit not incorporated in a closed system that carries drainage water under a driveway, roadway, railroad, pedestrian walk or public way. Culverts are often built to channelize streams and as part of flood control systems. Curb Cut. The opening along the curb line at which point vehicles or other wheeled forms of transportation may enter or leave the roadway. Curb cuts are essential at street corners for wheelchair users. C-3 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn). The A-weighted average sound level in decibels during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB weighing applied to nighttime sound levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). This exposure method is similar to the CNEL, but deletes the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) as a separate factor. Decibel "A-Weighted" (dBA). The scale for measuring sound in decibels that weights or reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. See also Decibel. Decibel (dB). A unit used to express the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear. The decibel measuring scale is logarithmic. Zero (0 dB) on the scale is the lowest sound level that a normal ear can detect under very quiet ("laboratory") conditions and is referred to as the "threshold" of human hearing. On the logarithmic scale, 10 decibels are 10 times more intense, 20 decibels are 100 times more intense, and 30 decibels are 1,000 times more intense than 1 decibel. See also Decibel "A-Weighted." Density, Gross. The number of dwelling units per gross acre of developable residential land designated on the General Plan Diagram. Design Capacity. The capacity at which a street, water distribution pipe, pump or reservoir, or a wastewater pipe or treatment plant is intended to operate. Development Fees. Direct charges or dedications collected on a one-time basis for a service provided or as a condition of approval being granted by the local government. DOF. California Department of Finance. Easement. A right given by the owner of land to another party for specific limited use of that land. An easement may be acquired by a government through dedication when the purchase of an entire interest in the property maybe too expensive or unnecessary. EMF. Electric and magnetic field. Emission Factor. The rate at which pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere by one source or a combination of sources. Endangered Species, California. A native species or sub-species of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant, which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range, due to one or more factors, including loss in habitat, change in habitat, over-exploita Fo h and Game~to etherlwith the State Fish and Game C mmission. y the State Department of g C-4 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Endangered Species, Federal. A species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, other than the species of the Class Insect determined to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended, would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to humans. The status is determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior. Environment. The physical conditions in an area, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance, which will be affected by a proposed project. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Equivalent Noise Level (Leq). Asingle-number representation of the fluctuating sound level in decibels over a specified period of time. It is asound-energy average of the fluctuating level. Erosion. The process by which material is removed from the earth's surface (including weathering, dissolution, abrasion, and transportation), most commonly by wind or water. Fault. A fracture in the earth's crust forming a boundary between rock masses that have shifted. An active fault is a fault that has moved recently and which is likely to again. An inactive fault is a fault which shows no evidence of movement in recent geologic time and no potential for movement in the relatively near future. Federal Candidate Species, Category 1 (Candidate 1). Species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Candidate Species, Category 2 (Candidate 2). Species for which existing information indicates that these species may warrant listing, but for which substantial biological information to support a proposed rule is lacking. Federal Flood Insurance. Affordable flood insurance offered by the federal government to property owners whose communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Floor Area, Gross. The total horizontal area in square feet of all floors within the exterior walls of a building, but not including the area of unroofed inner courts or shaft enclosures. C-5 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plon Update FIRM. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The ratio between gross floor area of structures on a site and gross site area. Thus, a building with a floor area of 100,000 square feet on a 50,000 square-foot lot will have a FAR of 2.0. For the purposes of this General Plan, building area devoted to structured or covered parking (if any) is not included in FAR calculations for non-residential developments. However, parking garages are included in FAR limitations for residential uses. GIS. Geographic Information Systems. Groundwater. Water under the earth's surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Groundwater Recharge. The natural process of infiltration and percolation of rainwater from land areas or streams through permeable soils into water-holding rocks that provide underground storage (i.e. aquifers). Habitat. The natural environment of a plant or animal. Hazardous Material. A material or form of energy that could cause injury or illness to persons, livestock, or the natural environment. Hazardous Waste. Waste which requires special handling to avoid illness or injury to persons or damage to property. Includes, but is not limited to, inorganic mineral acids of sulfur, fluorine, chlorine, nitrogen, chromium, phosphorous, selenium and arsenic and their common salts; lead, nickel, and mercury and their inorganic salts or metallo-organic derivatives; coal, tar acids such as phenol and cresols and their salts; and all radioactive materials. Household. Person or persons living in one housing unit. Housing Unit, Multifamily. Units with two or more housing units in one structure sharing a common floor/ceiling. Housing Unit, Single-Family Attached. Single family units that are attached to other units with adjoining walls extending from ground to roof that separate it from other adjoining structures and form a property line. Each unit has its own heating system. Housing Unit, Single-Family Detached. Single family units that are detached from any other house with open space on all four sides. C-6 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Hydrocarbons (HC). These gases represent unburned and wasted fuel. They come from incomplete combustion of gasoline and from evaporation of petroleum fuels. Impervious Surface. Any material which reduces or prevents absorption of water into land. Indirect Source. Any structure or installation which attracts an activity which creates emissions of pollutants. For example, a major employment center, a shopping center, an airport, or a stadium can all be considered to be indirect sources. Infill. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant lots in a built- up area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits. Infiltration. The introduction of underground water, such as groundwater, into wastewater collection systems. Infiltration results in increased wastewater flow levels. Infrastructure. Permanent utility installations, including roads, water supply lines, sewage collection pipes, and power and communications lines. Intersection Capacity. The maximum number of vehicles that has a reasonable expectation of passing through an intersection in one direction during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. JPB. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Operates Caltrain. Jobs-Housing Balance. Total jobs divided by total housing units. A more appropriate measure is the jobs/employed resident ratio, which divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of employed residents (i.e. people who live in the area, but may work anywhere). A ratio of 1.0 typically indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in- commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net out-commute. LAFCO. Local Agency Formation Commission of San Mateo County. Landslide. The downslope movement of soil and rock. Land Use. The purpose or activity for which a piece of land or its buildings is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained. Level of Service (LOS). The different operating conditions which occur in a lane or roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes. A qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors such as special travel time, interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort, C-7 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update and convenience, and indirectly, safety and operating cost. Levels of service are usually described by a letter rating system of A through F, with LOS A indicating stable traffic flow with little or no delays and LOS F indicating excessive delays and jammed traffic conditions. Liquefaction. A sudden large decrease in the shearing resistance of a cohesionless soil, caused by a collapse of the structure by shock or strain, and associated with a sudden but temporary increase of the pore fluid pressure. Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). A permitted solid waste facility which sorts or separates, by hand or by use of machinery, solid wastes or materials for the purposes of recycling, composting or transformation. Maximum Credible Earthquake. The largest Richter magnitude (M) seismic event that appears to be reasonably capable of occurring under the conditions of the presently known geological framework. Mitigation. A specific action taken to reduce environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are required as a component of an environmental impact report (EIR) if significant impacts are identified. Mitigation Measure. Action taken to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts. Mitigation includes: avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mobile Home. A structure, transportable in one or more sections which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit, with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. Mobile Sources. A source of air pollution that is related to transportation vehicles, such as automobiles or buses. Neighborhood Shopping Centers. A small retail center with up to 120,000 square feet of space on an 8-12 acre site serving a trading area population of 5,000 to 15,000. The principal tenant typically is a supermarket. Nitrogen Dioxide (NOZ). A reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of the combustion process and is a key to the ozone production process. C-8 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Chemical compounds containing nitrogen and oxygen; reacts with volatile organic compounds, in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone. It is also a major precursor to acid rain. Noise Contour(s). Isolines (a line on a map or chart along which there is a constant value) representing noise, measured in decibels. See also Community Noise Equivalent Level. Non-point Source. A pollutant source introduced from dispersed points and lacking a single, identifiable origin. Examples include automobile emissions or urban run-off. NPDES. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Open Space. Any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use as defined in the General Plan or designated on a local, regional, or state open-space plan as one of the four types of open space defined by state planning law. Oxidant. The production of photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen. Ozone. A compound consisting of three oxygen atoms, that is the primary constituent of smog. It is formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. Ozone can initiate damage to the lungs as well as damage to trees, crops, and materials. There is a natural layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere, which shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. PM-10. The current standard for measuring the amount of solid or liquid matter suspended in the atmosphere ("particulate matter including dust"). Refers to the amount of particulate matter over 10 micrometers in diameter. The smaller PM-10 particles penetrate to the deeper portions of the lung, affecting sensitive population groups such as children and people with respiratory diseases. Peak Hour Traffic. The number of vehicles passing over a designated section of a street during the busiest one-hour period during a 24-hour period. Pedestrian-oriented Development. Development designed with an emphasis on the street sidewalk and on pedestrian access to the building, rather than an auto access and parking areas. Percent Slope. A common way of expressing the steepness of the slope of terrain, which is derived by dividing the change in elevation by the horizontal distance traversed. For example, an increase of 20 feet elevation over a 100-foot distance is a 20 percent slope. C-9 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmentol Impact Report for South Son Francisco General Plan Update Planning Area. The City and the land outside its boundaries that bear relation to its planning. See Figure 1-2 for a graphic representation of South San Francisco's Planning Area. Plume. The volume of air, surface water, or groundwater space containing any of the substance emitted from a point source. Point Source. A source of pollutants which may be traced to a discrete point of emission. Precursor. A chemical compound that leads to the formation of a pollutant. Reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides are precursors of photochemical oxidants. Rare Species. A condition in which a species or subspecies, although not currently threatened with extinction, exists in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if the quality of its environment worsens. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Classes of hydrocarbons (olefins, substituted aromatics, and aldehydes) that are likely to react with ozone and nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere to form photochemical smog. Reclaimed Wastewater. Treated sewage or excess irrigation water with chlorine or other chemical disinfectants added. Recycling. Any of a variety of processes whereby waste is separated for reuse or reprocessing into a useful form. Response Time. The amount of time for an emergency service response, measured from the time of the distress call until arrival on the scene. Retention Area. A pond, pool, lagoon, or basin used for the storage of water runoff. Richter Scale. A logarithmic scale developed in 1935/36 by Dr. Charles F. Richter and Dr. Beno Gutenberg to measure earthquake magnitude by the amount of energy released, as opposed to earthquake intensity as determined by local effects on people, structures, and earth materials. Right-of--Way. A strip of land acquired by reservation, dedication, forced dedication, prescription or condemnation, and intended to be occupied or actually occupied by a road, crosswalk, railroad, electric transmission lines, oil or gas pipeline, water line, sanitary storm sewer or other similar use. c- to Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Update Riparian. Pertaining to the bank of a natural course of water, whether seasonal or annual. Riparian habitat is defined by the surrounding vegetation or presence of known wildlife movement pathways; it borders or surrounds a waterway. Sedimentation. Process by which material suspended in water is deposited in a body of water. Sensitive Receptors. Members of the population who are most sensitive to air quality include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. The term "sensitive receptors" can also refer to the land use categories where these people live or spend a significant amount of time. Such areas include residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. SFIA. San Francisco International Airport. Siltation. The process of silt deposition. Silt is a loose sedimentary material composed of finely divided particles of soil or rock, often carried in cloudy suspension in water. SMARA. California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SMCFCD. San Mateo County Flood Control District. Solid Waste. Unwanted or discarded material, including garbage, with insufficient liquid content to be free flowing. Source Separation. A process in which solid waste materials are produced as an autonomous waste product which are stored separately at the site of generation, or are physically separated from all other solid wastes into reryclable, compostable, or other fractions at the site of generation. Sphere of Influence (SOI). The ultimate service area of the City of South San Francisco as established by San Mateo County LAFCO. SSFUSD. South San Francisco Unified School District Stationary Source. A source of air pollution that is not mobile, such as a heating plant or an exhaust stack from a laboratory. STOPP. San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. C- I I Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report for South San Francisco General Plan Up. Subdivision. The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into two or more parcels, or other divisions of land for sale, development, or lease. Subsidence. The gradual sinking of land as a result of natural or man-made ca ate lots, tracts, Sulfur Dioxide (SOZ). A heavy, pungent, colorless air pollutant formed prim rily by the combustion of fossil fuels. It is a respiratory irritant, especially for asthmatics and s the major precursor to the formation of acid rain. Threatened Species, California. A species of animal or plant is endangered when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy form one or more cause ,including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors: or when although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers that it may become endangered if its environment worsens. A species of animal or plant shall be presumed to be rare or endangered as it is listed in: Sections 670.2 or 670.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations; or Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 17.11 or 17.12 pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act as rare, threatened, or endangered. Threatened Species, Federal. A species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. TOT. Transient Occupanry Tax. Levied on those staying in overnight facilities such as hotels, to help defray provision of City services related to the occupancy. Trip Generation. The number of vehicle trip ends associated with (i.e., produced by) a particular land use or traffic study site. A trip end is defined as a single vehicle movement. Roundtrips consist of two trip ends. Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Measures designed to reduce demand for automobile trips, typically focused on peak-periods. Transportation Systems Management (TSM). Measures designed to reduce peak-period auto traffic by making a more efficient use of existing resources, and emphasizing transit, signal coordination, ridesharing, and non-automobile alternatives. TDM is a subset of TSM. URM. Unreinforced masonry buildings or structures. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). A measure of both the volume and extent of motor vehicle operation; the total number of vehicle miles traveled within a specified geographical area (whether the entire country or a smaller area) over a given period of time. c- i2 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Draft Environmental Impact Report fbr South San Francisco General Plan Update Viewshed. The geographic area from which a site is visible. A collection of viewpoints. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). A group of chemicals that react in the atmosphere with nitrogen oxides in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone: does not include methane and other compounds determined by EPA to have negligible photochemical reactivity. Examples of VOCs include gasoline fumes and oil-based paints. Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (V/C). In reference to public services or transportation, ratio of peak hour use to capacity. Wetlands. An area at least periodically wet or flooded; where the water table stands at or above the land surface (bogs and marshes). Also those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wildlife Corridors. A natural corridor, such as an undeveloped ravine, that is frequently used by wildlife to travel from one area to another. Zoning District. A specifically delineated area on a zoning map within which regulations and requirements uniformly govern the use, placement, spacing, and size of buildings, open spaces, and other facilities. Zoning Ordinance. The City ordinance which divides South San Francisco into districts and establishes regulations governing the use, placement, spacing, and size of buildings, open spaces, and other facilities. C- 13