Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft EIR 10-05-2001 (2)
MARBELLA HOUSING SUBDIVISION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO October 5, 2001 Originally Prepared By: Design, Community & Environmental Final Draft Prepared By: City of South San Francisco, Planning Division MARBELLA HOUSING SUBDIVISION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO October 5, 2001 Originally Prepared By: Design, Community & Environmental 1600 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94709 Tel: 510.848.3815 Fax: 510.848.4315 In association with: DKS Associates Environmental Collaborative VIZ F/X Final Draft Prepare By: City of South San Francisco, Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Tel: 650.877.8535 Fax: 650.829.6639 Marbella Housing Subdivision Table of Contents Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction ................................................................1-1 2. Report Summary .............................................................2-1 3. Project Description ...........................................................3-1 4. Environmental Evaluation ..................................................... 4-1 4.1. Land Use and Public Policy ........................................ 4.1-1 4.2. Traffic ......................................................... 4.2-1 4.3. Visual Resources ................................................ 4.3-1 4.4.Biology ........................................................ 4.4-1 4.5. Hazardous Materials ............................................. 4.5-1 4.6.Noise ......................................................... 4.6-1 4.7. Geology and Seismicity .......................................... 4.7-1 5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............................................. 5-1 6. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions ........................................ 6-1 7. Report Preparation ...........................................................7-1 Appendices A. Initial Study Checklist and Explanations B. DKS Associates Traffic Report -October 2, 2001 C. Site Line Analysis D. Biological Survey E. Special Status Butterfly Species Report F. Wetland Deliniation G. Phase IAnalysis -June 9, 2000 H. Geologic Report -June 1, 2000, August 7, 2000 & October 1, 2000 I. Additional Soil Quality Analysis -February 9, 2001 October 4, 2001 -i- Marbella Housing Subdivision List of Figures Draft Environmental Impact Report 1. Regional Location ...........................................................3-2 2. Local Location ........................................................... ...3-3 3. Building Footprints ....................................................... ...3-6 4. Dimension Plan for Buildings A,B and C ...................................... .. 3-7 5. Dimension Plan for Buildings D,E and F ...................................... .. 3-8 6 . Grading Plan for Buildings A,B and C ........................................ .. 3-9 7. Grading Plan for Buildings D, E and F ........................................ . 3-10 8. Lower Garage Plan ........................................................ ..3-11 9. Upper Garage Plan ........................................................ ..3-12 10. Typical First Floor Plan .................................................... .. 3-13 1 1. Typical Second, Third and Fourth Floor Plan ................................... . 3-14 12. First Floor Plan with Recreation Facility ...................................... . 3-15 13. Second Floor Plan with Recreation Facility .................................... . 3-16 14. Unit Plan 136 ............................................................ ..3-17 15. Unit Plan 2 .............................................................. ..3-18 16. Unit Plan 3 .............................................................. ..3-19 17. Unit Plan 3a ............................................................. ..3-20 18. Unit Plan 4 .............................................................. ..3-21 19. Unit Plan 4a ............................................................. ..3-22 20. Gellert Boulevard Exterior Elevation ......................................... .. 3-23 21. Exterior Side Elevation .................................................... .. 3-24 22. Preliminary Landscape Plan ................................................ ..3-25 23. Key Roadways with Views of the Site ........................................ . 4.2-2 24. View Corridor Graphic .................................................... . 4.3-8 25. Viewpoint Location Map ................................................... 4.3-9 26. Existing Conditions 1 ...................................................... 4.3-12 27. Existing Conditions 2 ...................................................... 4.3-14 28. Existing Conditions 3 ...................................................... 4.3-16 29. Existing Conditions 4 ...................................................... 4.3-18 29. Existing Conditions 5 ...................................................... 4.3-20 30. Viewpointl ............................................................. 4.3-28 31. Viewpoint2 ............................................................. 4.3-29 32. Viewpoint 3 ............................................................. 4.3-30 33. Viewpoint4 ............................................................. 4.3-31 34. Viewpoint5 ............................................................. 4.3-32 35. Site Cross-Sections ........................................................ 4.7-4 36. Preliminary Site and Landscape Plan: 74-Unit Alternative ......................... . 5-6 37. Sectional Representation of View Preservation ................................. . 5-7 38. Viewpoint 1 - 74-Unit Alternative ............................................ . 5-9 39. Viewpoint 2 - 74-Unit Alternative ............................................. 5-11 40. Viewpoint 3 - 74-Unit Alternative ............................................ 5-13 41. Viewpoint 4 - 74-Unit Alternative ............................................. 5-15 October 4, 2001 -u- Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report List of Tables 1. Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................... 2-4 2. LOS Thresholds: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ........................ 4.2-3 3. LOS Standards for CMP Roadway Segments .................................... 4.2-5 4. LOS Definition: Freeway Segments ........................................... 4.2-5 5. Existing AM and PM Peak Intersection Volumes ................................. 4.2-7 6. Intersection Capacity Analysis Background Scenario ............................ 4.2-10 7. Local Sensitive Species ..................................................... 4.2-6 8a. Additional Soil Quality Analysis Retest ........................................ 4.5-3 8. Summary of Documented Environmental Hazards ................................ 4.5-6 9. Soil Analytical Results ...................................................... 4.5-7 10. Comparison of Project Alternatives ........................................... 4.5-3 October 4, 2001 -~- Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 Introduction This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of the construction of the proposed Marbella Housing Subdivision in the City of South San Francisco. This assessment is designed to inform City decision-makers, other responsible agencies. and the public-at- large ofthe nature of the project. Additionally. the report identifies mitigation measures that, if followed, would reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts and examines alternatives to the proposed project. a. Proposed Action The proposed project, the Marbella Housin~~ Subdivision, is ahigh-density, multi-family residential development comprised of 280 housing units. The project is proposed to be constructed on a 14.9-acre parcel located to the northwest of the intersection o1' Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco. The project includes one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, as well as 630 parking stalls. Approximately halt of the site will be left as steeply sloping open space. Basic data on the proposed project appears in Table 1 on the inside front cover of this EIR. The project is described more in detail in Chapter 3. EIR Scrape, Issues and Concerns The scope of this Draft EIR for the Marbella Housing Subdivision was estahlished by the City of South San Francisco after reviewing the preliminary checklist findings for the Initial Study as well as two traffic analyses, two biological surveys, and several geotechnical and environmental reports. Twenty sources and studies were consulted in identifying the scope of this EIR through the Initial Study process which is incorporated herein in Appendix A. Issues addressed in this EIR are the following: • Land Use and Public Policy • Traffic • Visual Resources • Biology • Hazardous Materials • Noise • Geology and Seismicity Other issues, such as air quality, geology and soils, public services and utilities, population and housing, cultural and historic resources and agricultural and mineral resources, are not covered in this EIR as identified and documented in Appendix A. The basis for these findings are explained in Chapter 6 of this document. Report Organization This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters: October 4, 2uol Chapter 1, Page 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report • Chapter I: ]rvroduc~ion provides an introduction and overview describing both the intended use of the document and the review and certification process. • Chapter 2: Report Sununart• summarizes environmental consequences that would result from the proposed project, describes recommended miti~aation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation. • C/tapter 3: Project Description describes the proposed project in detail, including its location, background information, primary ob,jcctives and structural and technical characteristics. • Chapter 4: Settings, Impacts curd Mitigation Measures provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. and presents recommended mitigation measures to reduce their significance. • Chapter 5: Alternuri~~es to the Proposed Project considers two alternatives to the proposed project. including the CEQA-required "No Project Alternative," and alower-density residential development. • Chapter 6: CEQA-Required Assessmeru Conciusiona~ assesses issues such as significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducement, cumulative impacts and unavoidable significant effects. • Chapter 7: Report Preparation identifies the data sources and preparers of the Draft EIR. Environmental Review Process This Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies and organizations for a review period of at least 45 days as required by law. A public hearing will be held on the Draft EIR during the review period. The public is invited to attend the hearings to offer oral comments on this Draft EIR Comments on the Draft EIR may also be submitted in writing to: Ms. Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 71 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Following the close of the public comment period, a Final Environmental Impact Report will be prepared to respond to all substantive comments regarding this Draft EIR. The Final EIR will include with it a Mitigation Monitoring Program for all mitigation measures listed in the EIR. The Final EIR will also be made available for public review prior [o consideration of its certification by [he City of South San Francisco City Council. Once the City certifies the Final EIR, the Council will also consider the project itself, which may be approved or denied. If the project is approved, the Council may require mitigation measures specified in this EIR as conditions of project approval. Alternatively, the Council could require other mitigation measures deemed to be effective measures for the identified impacts, or it could find that the mitigation measures cannot he feasibly implemented. For any identified significant impacts for which no mitigation is feasible, the Council will be required to make a finding that the measures to mitigate the impacts are outside the jurisdiction of the City, or that the impacts are considered acceptable because overriding considerations indicate that the project's benefits outweigh the impacts in question. October 4, 2001 Chapter 1, Page Marbella Housing Subdivision 2. Report Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report This summary presents an overview of the analysis contained on Chapter 4: Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. CEQA requires that this chapter summarize the following: 1) areas of controversy; 2) significant impacts; 3) unavoidable significant impacts; 4) implementation of mitigation measures; and 5) alternative to the project. A. Project Under Review This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of construction of the proposed Marbella residential subdivision on a 14.9 acre site located northwest of the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco. The project consists of 280 multi-family residential units in six buildings set end to end along the eastern side of the proposed project site. The remainder of the proposed project site would be retained as steeply sloping open space. B. Areas of Controversy There has been some controversy surrounding the proposed project. The vast majority of the concerns have related to the change in visual character of the proposed project site as a result of its development, since the site is currently undeveloped. Additionally, there are intersections in the proposed project area which currently operate at unacceptable levels of service. The development of the proposed project would increase the traffic at some of these intersections. C. Significant Lnpacts Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of cultural, historical and aesthetic significance. Development of the Marbella Housing Subdivision project has the potential to generate environmental impacts in a number of areas. Impacts to the following environmental topics could be significant without the implementation of mitigation measures, but most would be reduced to a less than significant level if the mitigation measures recommended in this report are implemented: 1) Traffic 2) Visual Resources 3) Noise 4) Geology D. Mitigation Measures The Draft EIR suggests specific mitigation measures that would reduce most impacts identified above to October .1, 21-01 Chapter 2, Page I Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report less-than-significant levels, as summarized in the table at the end of this summary. The mitigation measures in this Draft EIR will form the basis of a Mitigation Monitoring Program to be implemented in accordance with State law. E. Unavoidable Significant Impacts The project would cause an unavoidable significant impact with respect to traffic, this impact is as follows: Impact TRAFFIC-1: The intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour, under the existing and background conditions. The addition of project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service, since it is already at LOS F. However, it would result in a substantial increase in the average delay per vehicle, which constitutes a significant impact. Signalization at Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center driveway is not recommended due to its proximity to the Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard/McDonald's Driveway intersections. A third signal would have a negative impact for traffic flows along Gellert Boulevard which would result in increased delays at multiple intersections in the project area. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be n sig~iificant and unnvoidcrble impact. F. Alternatives to t)ze Project This Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to both the development project and the proposed annexation. Two alternatives to the proposed development are analyzed, which are: 1) No Project Alternative 2) 74-Unit Alternative Though the No Project Alternative (retaining the site as an undeveloped parcel) has the least amount of environmental consequences, the 74-unit alternative is the development alternative with the least environmental impact. G. Summary Table Table 1 presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified in this report. It has been organized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Chapter 4. The table is arranged in 4 columns: 1) Environmental impacts; 2) Significance before mitigation; 3) Mitigation measures; and 4) Significance with mitigation. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one mitigation may be required toachieve aless- than-significant impact. For a complete description of potential impacts and suggested mitigation October 4, 21101 Chapter 2, Page Marbella Housing subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report measures, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter 4. Additionally this summary does not detail the timing of mitigation measures. Timing of implementation will be detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan to be published with the Final EIR. October 4, tot-I Chapter 2, Page 3 F" ~. u C C O u .L.. ~ ~3= d L 7 d ~I O v C y ~ L u c ~:. '+- d c ~ b0 V a E e C U a a U ~, Ar z d W A d a H a~ ~, ~ o ~ > ° ~ o . .~ -~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ a~ , ~ .~ .~ 3 0 ~ ' ~' ~' ~ ~' ~ '° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' .J o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o 3 .~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ V 'L3 ~ ~ 3 ~ U ,~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 0 3 '~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 •~, o -o „~ ~ o ~, a~ ~ ~ aA 3 ~, o a~ o ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ; U a~ ,~ ' ~,., • ~ , o ~ '~ ~ a~ ~ ?; r.-. ~+ ~O N '~" ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bA E., CC r.. v ..-. ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~, a~ a~ .~ ~ 'O ~' cd ~, ~ ' ~ }-' N ... ~ ~'" ~ O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ 0 3 4. w ~o ~ o '~ m o w ~~ ~C ~ a~ o c ~ ~ O ~ ~ U w w a F^ n4 ~ ~ .~ o o `' cC ~ ~ '~• ~ O O ~ O U Q > ~ ~ U ~=+ ~ '~ O O 4-, 'O Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 0 ~ N +"~ ~ O 4 • ~ • U ~ ~ _ O ~ ~C ~ cd Q" .~_ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ Q•' • N .~ O C/] ~ ~ ' cam, C N ~ ~ Q ~ ~ b D ~ ~ N ~ O ~ O "C3 O A ~, 'TS ~ s.. O +~ GQ cC c~ ~ ° ~ ° ~ ~ o ~ -o >~ v~ ~ ~ a" ~1 ~ > ~' . ° '~ 3 a a ~ ~ a o ~ ~ c F-~ ~ °~,' ~ ~ ' ~ C7 ~' ~ v ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ O ~ p '~ ~ ~ • •~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q ~" O • ~ O .~ ~ • ~ ~. s • ~ , • ~ ~, >, ~ ~ 4, ~ ~ cC cC ~ O cd ~ ¢ ~ . ,~ O ~ cad o ~ ~ ~ -rs ~ , b w ~ O ~, 0 ~, i ~ •y v ~ a~ O i > ~ ~ N > ~. N ~ c~ .C ~ ~ '~ a ~ O 3 O .c." ° en o .~ ~ ~ O °' x .~ 3 ~, ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ 0 3 ~ ~' y ~ Q.. ~ N ~ `~ G=. ~ ~ ~ U O ~ 4. ,~ H a~ ~ a~ a~ ~ p a~ O o aq >, a~ O ~ c 4- w I s ~, ~' ~ Q 0•' ~ .S: ~' cC i. c~ "C3 cC O ca O X z- ~ O dA O ~ s, fl- y ~ v ~ U U pq ~ O O ~n c O •~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ `i' ~ c ;~ p ~ c p `a ~ ~ •~ a • ~ cC ~ c c «' E ~ c .fl c • u. . ~ w T ~ t o O ~ v ~ ~ p O ~ ~ ~ °' 2s c a ~ °~ ~ T p ~ • s ~ y ~ ~ y o y c~ h o w p .Y f° ,~ F- .~ ~ ~ o 0 v ~ O ~ ~O! ~ a. ?~ ~ o ~ ot1 ~ 'c a~ c O 4--I V ~ V . p ~ L •B L G~ ~_ ~ yy„ ~ L CC ,Y' ~ N ~ ~ M W ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ i.. _ • f/1 Y i.. '~ C~ cC O C ~ ~ CC c ~ ~-+ ~L • s" O ~ ~ L ~ U ~ N L ~ J~j C{.~ ~ ~' C C N •~ "C + n• a + x 7 bA ~ ~ L ~.II ~ . + - a~ -a ~ `~ C7 c,.., O V) ~ ~ ~ . ~ c o . ~ ~ , o ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ •~ >, c c ~ ~ cc c c ~ ~ c ~ O c° a. `~ o U • 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~' 4" +-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ o O O . - c~i c o ~ ~ y ~ ~ p., v 3 .~ ~ an ~ ~ 3 ~ .p ~° a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ai tti , ~? a~ ~ ~ U is.., U ~ ~ s, O ~ ~ •~ ~ .~ ~ ~ y U~C7 °'~pa ~ °' • ~ ~ o ~ a~ . ~ Q.. ~ H a~ N ~, U O ~ ~O Q, '~^' ~ ~ ~ N '~ '~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ -~ ~ O U O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ '"_' Q, ~ a, :~ C7 .~_ a °~° -v o ~ q ~ I~1 ~^ U Giy ~ U v ~ ~ '-' ~ ~ O N ~. 'G ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ 0 ~ O ~° ~ ~. C7 cn ° ~ ~"'~ ~ N C7 ~ ~ O O ° ° b p ° c h ~ ~ ~' ~ ~. .S'".. ~ CJ .b ~ ~ om ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'' ~ t . U U ~ c~ ~ ~"' ~ O a G4 ~ '+~-~ ~ 4-. ~ o ~ F" O ~ ~ "C3 p CQ ~ U c~ O ~ H ~. ~ ~ ~° ~ ~' ° ° ~, ~ O ~ Qom.. ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ U O w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ «i 0 3 °' ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ .Y' ~ -~ ~ ~' o ~ o ~ ~ ~ U ~ ^p O ~ T3 ~ ° ~ '~ '~ ~ a: .n ~ '~ v~ '~ ~ .~ o .~ ~ ~ ~ o °o ° ~ ° 3 ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ O X `'' ~3~3~~~~'~.~ o -~ ~ O > N ~ ~ O •~ O .~ ~ ~ O U_ N U I~ GTr w O U ~ on °A ~ ~ „~ O ~ ~'' ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ bn o ~ O ~ s~ ° ~ ~ 3 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nn o ~ o ~, O ~ Q ~ ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o c 3 ~ ~' y a~ U '.~-. ~; ~ U N ~ ~_ ~ ~' O ~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ 7 ~ .... ~ ~ 3 ~, 0 .~ ~ U a~ ~ > O ~~ O .~ .._, O ~ Q.. ~ .L ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ a~ 0 ~. N .~ E--+ c~ a~ ~' -~ ~ -~ ~ a' .° ~ .~ ~ O a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ° U N ~ ,~ a HI H ~ ~, .~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ =-. ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ 3 ~ U •~ -~ ~ .~ O ~ ~ '~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ bn zo CC N •--~ > ~ Q ~ '.=. V~ ~ ~r ~ .~ ~ v, > .b O ~ U ~ ~ U •~ ~ ~O p O '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O :--. O ~ ,~ ,S" ~' RS U ~ ,_; w a ~~ ~ • ~, o ~ ~ ~, ~ ~n '~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ - ,~ ~ ~ b A U ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ , . 3 ao : ~ "~ -~ a ~, ~ +-+ ~ n ~ 4, ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o > > a~ ~ ~ O sue. X ~ ~ ~' ~ ~' ~ O v, ~ ~ ~ > O >, s. ~ ~ ~ O b A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o ,~ ,~ bn ~ . ~ ~ V a >, ~ cd +--' ~ '~ a y ~ '~ a p ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~' ~ o C r~r ~ ~ , ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ '~ 'C i- ~ ~ O pp y~ -~ ~ c~C O `~ ~ ~ • ~ . ~ ~ ~ • ~ W ~ C ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ °A ~ o 0 ~ s.. ~ U ~ ~ ~ 'O v i O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ o m o ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ > a~ ~;~ ~ ~ ou 'O y ~_ 3 a~ 'C3 O O U ~3 a~ 0 O c O vi C ~ ~ ~ y U GJ .~ 'C .~ Gp Q_ '~ ~_ a~ ~; ~ ~ .~ ~ H a~ .~ ~, Ts '.~ ~ o :~ ~ ~ O vi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ R3 ~, ~ ~ ~ N o ~ ~ a~ 4-. ~ ° o -~ t, O ~ Q O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ • ~r' -~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ 3 v~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ C7 4--i O O 'C '~ 3 N _~ ~_ 4. N bA U 'C3 O U on .~ .~ 'C3 O ai c~ ~, a~ a ~, J .~ U N 0 a~ .~ N C c~ h ~ o ~ ~ >, ~+ ,~ °~', Ts ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~~ ~; ~ ~ U ~" ~ ~ ~ o .~ -cs '~ ~ ~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ s.. ~ .~ O ~ G~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ M~U~~ a ^ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~-+ ~. ~. U C.' .~ a~ L. Q. ~_ O bA b O U M I~ N ~ ~ ~ ~-+ .Z» ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ o _~ ~ ~ O 'C ¢' o ~ 3 o ~ o a. 3 vi .~ bn .~ U _O '~ O 0 a~+ ,-`~ U O Qj ~ ~ O ,~ cd ~ y'. awn ~ ~ OI N .S; y ~ ."C-. 0 0 rn '~ -b ~ ~ O •, H ~ ~;. ~ ~ °~'° ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, a. a, ,~ ~ o ~ ~» a~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ O Q. ~ N ~ •~ .S1 O ~ '~ ~ ~ N Q ~ +r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, i, •~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ o E"" o ,~ ~' ~ ~ ~ O ~ L~ ~ ~ ~» ~ ~ F~ ~~~ O ~"~ Q) O ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ O O ~ `~ ~ ~ CJ bA 'S..' • N ~ ~ U ~ ~ O y ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ° ~ d ~ o ~ ~, a. .~ .b ~ ~ ~' a ~: U '~ O c~ 3 RS ftS .~ w ~, ~n .~ O 4r O N C~ '~ .~ 0 a~ 0 U 4=. bA .~ U ~ i o .' C~7 O O U U 0 0 -o r Q 0 r y a W H O N x w O z F- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~' ~ _.., _ ~ • ~ ,~ i1. ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~:~-~ ~ b ~ i ~ s~, s~ c o ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ U .~ cd ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢„ ~ c cOC c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ O 'L7 ~O •~+ V O ~ ~ ~ O ~ W `n Q., ~ ~z~~~ ~ ~U•~ ~'+ . ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ V ~_ rl ~, ? ~ ~ Q. '~ O . ~ °' '~ • z ~€ ~~~ ~•~ ~o ~ y y N ~ ~ O '-' ~ a? +--' ~ `n ~ O o a ~.; 4-. O ~ W ~ O ~ U ~ O O ~ a k' v, ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ° ~ ~-° ~ ~ O o ~•~' Z 3 ~ ~ H «~ w ~ 0 ~, o ~; ~ ? ~ ~ ~ U °" ~ '~~ ~ o '~ '-~ ~ ~ .~ N '~ '~ U ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ 4, ~ ~.~ ° a~ • o •~ ~ '~ ~ .~ ~ O O ~ sp., ~ N o ~ ~ a. ~ . ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~_ N 3 ~ O r! ~ ~ ~ O o zU~. ~ ~ U ~ '~ ,~ 4--i U p r'' s • o ~~ o • . ~ o ~ ~' ~" ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ .r ~ >, ~. ,~ ~' U ~ b A ~ ~ Y N ~' ~..'~., ~ O ~ r 4 ~ p ~ .~ ~, . ~ + c ~ .t" bA N •--~ ~ ~• U ~ • ~ ..~. ~3~~ N • Y O ~ • ~ ~. 'O ~ s ~ ~ •' ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~~ ~ . z E•- ~ ~ > o , o a, ~ °~ a~ `~ a~ o ~ ~' ~ a~ a~ o ~ ~ ~ ° ~ '~ ~ ~ p~ y y Y Q. O~ O O o •~ ~ p, ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ N ~ ~ U ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a• ~ c ~ 3 ~ Y •~ ~ ~, , `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a~ .~ • ~ ~ U cn ~ a" ~ cC U p o U O ~ ~ .~ U • ~ O ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ U 3 C1. X ~.. ~ ~, a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ °' ~ a? ~; ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ • y ~ ,o a~ ~. .~ o U ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o ,~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ o o U -o • ~ ~ ~, Ca 'a o • ~ .~ ~ ~.. a a~ o ~ ~ Z :~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~, -~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ o a~ ~ U ' ~ •~ ~ °~ o ~ ~, ~ a, o ~ ~ ~, u M bA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ U N M N c~ M W ~ ~ . ~, ~ cd U ~ N 'C3 v , • •--, ~ W ~ ~ W '~ x. 4""' ~ G~ ~ .~ ~ C/] .~ U ~ -~ o , ~ ,~ ~,? , ~ ~ ~ ~ o a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ a~ al ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tin ~ ~ a~ ~ . ~ ~ > , ~ o °' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bA p cC O~ dA y U p ~ U Q ~. ~ .~ cC ~ tU., ~ «S is N U 4? • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . • ~ ~~ m r~ ~ U ~ ~~ Q 3 ~ >' ~ ~- U ~ '--~ v i » ' ' v j ~ z ~. ~~~ ~oaa~ ~, U U O L a~ ~_ C c 0 .~ U O ..G a W E~ 3 z C7 O °a Q x 3 e Q o V' r O i a Cs O i d W ~~ H a~ ~ o ~ ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ,.~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o O ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ • . U ¢, ^. ..k ~ ~ O O • ~ bA cC ~ O `~ ~ U . .~ O ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ "O ~ , 3 ° U a~ 0 •~ ~ ~ -= ~ U ~ ~ ,V N ~ ~-+ ~ , ,_„ ~ N ~ . N b 0 ~ ~ y -- ~ ~ ~. U p > o ~ a~ ,~ 3 ~ a~ ~ ~ 3 = ~ ^~ ~ -tea b A c~ ~ U ~ U U ~ O 3 O ~ O ~ ~ CCS U ftS ~ ~ •+--~ ,--1 U ~ ~1. • ~ ~ O 0 U ~ cd ~ '~ O ~ z.. ~" +~ N ~ ~ O ~ ~ o a~ ~ U U O ~ • • (~ ~ ~+ ~ f., ..~ ~ '~ N +"' O ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ U c~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~, U ~ .~ ~ U ~ y ~ N ~ ~ ~ U ~ •3 0 ° U •s: ~ N Y Q" ~ ~ ~ U c~ N ~ ~ ~. W p O p U V" ~ bA ~ '~ H a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~, O v 'O ~ ~ ~ O 'O ~ O Q" U c 4.:b O _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ o U "~' ~ ~ ~ ,~ -~ ' ~.. ~~; a~ ~ • ~, ~ •3 CA N ~ ~ ~ ..~ O ~° o W ~ r. ~ o O U O U ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ J, r% p .U ..~ ~~ o o ~" ~ ~ .. ~ ~, U ~ ~ ~ O ~ c~ N vOi ""' ~ O U ~ Q W ;~ ~n ~ U" Gz. ~ Cn N a~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~ ~ N v°~ a~ o U ~ O U .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q H ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ U U V N O N .,..y ~ +--~ N ~ ~ •~ ~ '~ p p., ~. ~ ~ ~ O S~. O U O ~ ~ ~ ~. O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ O ^~ `n ~ N U ~ V CCS ~ 'C3 U `~ ~ ~ ~ 3 O U ~ O O ,~ c~ ~. 3 ~ ~; 0 a ° ~ ~ M'~ ~ ~ G ,.~ ~ ° w ~' `~ ~ C7 0 ~ . ~.. N •~ U ~ U O ~ ~ ~ U 3 ~ ° ~ 0 `~ ,~ ~ . ~ ~ °~, ~ ~ ~ o ~ o o ~ o ~ ¢, o o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~, Q- ;~ W ~ C 7 3 ~ ~ °' ~ ~ . ~ ~ o -o ~ . Marbella Housing Subdivision 3 Project Description Draft Environmental Impact Report The Marbella Housing Subdivision would be ahigh-density, multi-family residential development comprised of 280 housing units. The project is proposed to be constructed on a 14.9-acre parcel located to the northwest of the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco. The project includes one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, as well as 630 parking stalls. Approximately half of the site would be retained as steeply sloping open space. Figure I shows the location of South San Francisco in the Bay Area, while Figure 2 shows the site's location in South San Francisco. A. Character of the Site acid Its Surroundiizgs The project site is currently undeveloped and consists of a series of steeply graded cut slopes and flat benches. Four graded benches with concrete drainage-control swales are located on the slope running north to south. The southern portion of the site consists of a level area located adjacent to a driveway which leads to off-site businesses and athickly-vegetated area surrounded by a berm. An asphalt pad, surrounded by an area covered with wood chips and pine needles, is centrally located on the eastern side of the site. This area is used seasonally for the sale of Christmas trees. Vegetation on the cut slope currently consists of grassy or ruderal vegetation and a few shrubs and trees. In addition, there is a thick stand of vegetation on the south side of the site, adjacent to the McDonald's parking lot. Surrounding land uses are as follows: • West: PG&E power lines, residential development. • North: residential development. • East: Commercial and retail development, including a Pak n' Save, a Valero gas station, and other community-serving retail uses. • South: MacDonald's restaurant, Westborough Professional Center (currently underconstruction) and an ARCO gas station. B. Policy Setting The City of South San Francisco's policy documents which apply to the project site are the South San Francisco General Plan, the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan and the zoning ordinance. October 4, toot Chapter 3, Page ~~ - - YO LO SONOMA 128 . --' d ~~~ y ~ - 505 ~`~e~ ~ ~~ S~a~ ( Davis ~J5 _ - 80 Santa ___ Rosa ' J~'~ 101 ~~ ;. ~•., ~ ~O ---------- -- Sonoma ~'., Na a o~a~~c P ' SOLANO ,Petaluma Fairfield ~~ ~- 37 ~ --- -~ j S ---- Valley ,~~~ MARIN 80 .. ~~~ d. Sanael Richmond a Concord 680 4 580 ._-.-`~~-, Berkeley -~ 2a Walnut CONTRA Creek COSTA 13 •~ so Oakland . - --"" - -- 205 S. F. Al 580 - -" - . - 580 ~ -- --- - SOUth Sari Pleasanton 580 28o C1IICISCO' Hayward Livermore San ~ - 880 SAN ateo 680 ALAMEDA ; JOAQUIN (' Half sa l Moon 101 Fremont 1 Palo SAN Alto San MATEO Jose - - \ ---- - SANTA --= 17 CLARA STANISLAUS ~' '`~ '~'m':,~ : ~ (SANTA ,~ ,,. 'y~ r _ ~ to v~ ..,.r cr CRUZ 101 - - ' ~ -- ` _. ,~- ~. ' ~ Y ~ r ,,~.~ ..,~ ~`;,~,,. .~,~~ 1 Santa - _ - --. .,. ,~ cn,Z c~lroy, --------------- .. FIGURE 1 0 10 20mles REGIONAL LOCATION MARBELLA HOUSING SUBDIVISION FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL_ IMPACT REPORT '`' U O C .~ V ~ W ~ ~~ ~~)ON )Yd ~ e m< ~. ' AAI NYAa T 3/~, \ ~ z ~ YY)dpd 8 j AY =O ' ~ .3AY ` o ` m y ! 4Y D1'))) ~ N9YHr r 3AY Y bl/ ~t ~^ yr 6~N' ~ti" PgP ' ~' ~ 1 n I ~ ': o ~ it 3AV W 1ryyiuYw °o ¢~ ~ aJNt\N s\ eP\~° ~ < < ~' ) _ < v -"~ 4 v r 3AY ~ Y))pNSrN S ~~, ! 4 ~ d ~ GP ~ '&~ 1 a o° f Q r, ~ ~ ~rAbb3y ~ $ ~~ ` , 00 = D 3 YbD /~ ~ r ~ ~bo'r3~" J P,W y` ~`` o~ d~ 6d9 OS yr _ \~~~ ; J f ~ , \U' .Yc ~ ~ AY ~^8 / ~ ~' ~ rl c° ~ ~ < s ~o b°2 ~1. ~';d°'~ ~ Yb 1j c ~ w~~`' G AY ~ ~ ~ ~ y f ~Ni 3,~ ~ U ~~1~E y "1`~ ~RO~~ p. ,pt~'d~ o ,~+ ~ ~~"y 'Org31J ¢ ~ ^ ° r Sold ,~ 1^V °Ql~ J°Q, ~~-~o ! /' `` . • y ~ ~ ~y ~ b Q\HENOP do S yp _ t~ ~. 0 ! n~ n3 ' J . Q~ !^~'~ G St. ~ 60 ~ 3 0 .dal ~ \ Y y~ ~ A ry ~ `O ~•~ J~I, ; __ i ~ ~'Jd 631. rj - 1 8 - 0 ~ \ a' \ J 6' ` ~ i `~ ;~ ~ P s O rL $PPINGW~fl 2 ~ 5 Yy\O ,~ \~ ~' \ b p cac[awcoo Np .. ~~ ~ ~~ S rbz 'C7 i P p ~R~. Ob ~o OHO ~y.7 epJ ~O WY. p~ y --. ~N A, ~ )ISnr ~h 3pn. >d, f Yi~~ a y. "N " l~. S iA1aW P~ / ` d. j \.'. yd PP E~ SHERWOOO Cb~Y~3Z o a / ~ !' MO))) ` sp pHIO~~``. ~ °'~a ~ oe .. <'" ,r~ s~ S' c~ _ ! ~ MI OOYa00 \ ~ r p U• b')+oho $ Q U } J°o ~< is ~ Al 6 ~J,~sy ~/\C\/ ~' c,. ~` ~ ~~/)dpy g7~Qi'lp~' ~,..~ i ..~ m ^. \ y` ~ l 1i 0e\ d0 ~ J •' OUy 6 del ; ~~.~ tM G, ~ O)by bid ~ St. ~`~ ~.tS Gqt ~~ y¢= U W 0 f 'OJ` O ~ i° W i~ y ~._. Jr s ` iI¢ ~ • y a~ ~ ~ J O~j'' a0 ~~e\wf s J ~ ;- ~~ Z~ ` ~ ~`>' ~ of $ ~ ~ ~" QO' Oe~ y o do do a0 ~e~ . G ~ o ~ ~ I Q ~ S .^8 z W o ~i ~4,' l Z U ~ ~ ~ Ji pit` s ~o s~do °d ~' V 9 ~ y `g W ~ !J. y t ~ ~oi oQ ` ~y~ ~ , { S~OOC ~~ ° of i ~ ~ ~Eg d ~ ">'~ OR' \pEP~ .CRE Yo P .~.~ ~ 0 e • ~inib,d.~'a U Ps ~ s sr t 9 C oP. /\°~ 0° Q~E o ~B .C7R. ~ ~ ~^a`c EQO~ ~,a~ °? ~LJ 0$ ~sPi S ti4r ~ ' ° 8 d0 $ ~QP~ ~ 'fo Pt, 3~AVA\. NOA NV~ \ $ . j .r o \ \ )j \ ~ ^ \ ~, ~hJ ,\~` 73 ~ ~ ~< rN~r3s v c~Q" r ~ `,t,P~ o\. P ~ ~ D ~~v Ord` ~~a= ~ EL Py ~ ti0 / G ' '~ ~V1EW sP1 ~~ ~W= I 5 ti` e o ~ ~ ~ y ~~ c\ ~~+ ,~ as 1 ~! 'dli ~di Q=om 60 ~7 p~ v sib / / ota A30 ,~. i 'a4 ~ °Q,. Js° )may ~,it,oQ,. Q +/~` J HYjs3 3 ~ t '~' ~, a o ~ Wo Y . hr) ~ ~~ OQ~ d ~ ~ H ~j ~~ S ~ 4~ ,`~' 2 ¢ C Rb ° r0J SP O@~ G ~iS Ca' '~7 tll~tl ~ ~ r~ ~~ ~d4 Q' ~ ? a ~° Q~ ~,. ~ ~~ o oP ~ rsaw ~ i ~ N v' ~ d t,T4• f. ° S~ !~' 'je~ pa' - V *yH3Y ~Q°'~dd~; ~M • ` '! .~ QQr `y.~ , @~ ARB i / / W ~ t~.i~7 WEY.4° y ~ d~ dO ~bVY ~'~ ~°~Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'~3,,( ~'tibOe DONEGP~ ~~'~ * ~' ° bo r by N Db ~ i pP~ ~c ~ dd+D tIPPERPP~ ~~'~° iy~~ayp d• by"y c P~ Ob~b ~ .bQ = T ~vD (,J - orr~ 3 ~ S b q~b~'sn~ pp toy 6~6 ,o ~~ac° SEPP~ .~ Q ~~' 8 z a0 DIdWA10 r / .i ~~J. ~1 ` ~\Otl'S`E~p pR. ~~ ~~ ~tZy ~uJ~~Q~~~c`~' o`. \\ ~~pM oA.a - ~,reMy9~m )o"°`~ c~gna°O , o~' ~ M N oR. ~' ~ `N c ruisv >, ~ ~gIBERT I =:qQ d ~ .IYM7 o as Qc°r , G<\10EN .,1J ~@~, ~f~ ~,10•'0liw0ae` S30gjp ~ a `` b z i z z v S '~ / G~ P~ 0 0 ~ ~ ;~ N0133a v Ci. msE11 ., J ..• a ~ ~ Da ~ " ~~ ~ .~ ~' c w~ ~ trtMJl 1M IALR'w 5 111 ~' dl- s~ ~` ~' pP `N a3 L ~~.yo `• OP_ ~oy~ ,sarw~ sRUNSwI~ M, x Z~. ~ < `Opt o ts' ~., ~ ~~~,`t~' .:tY.. k€~,^,y ~/ y.,...... ~s~,. ~ ^~ ?~\S ! ~ / dp a ~. ~...o.. .~ ob .._.,. ~ ~ ~ _ ~ lf.~ o~, ~ M,y s0 a'C~ OR`2\~v1, ~O c ., u ~.~$ z ~ o c~~~ ~ .a•,j, ~J ~~ 'f• ~ `Sl PpN r M P ~( ~ 3 EYCEfT1~ i ~+ ¢ CHRISTEN ,~ ,i0~''~' ,y ~y ~ / tP as . ~~~., GE~1E *Vf ~~ S ~ A ~ 3 AY. ~~6! ~ !J % ~j \O~ sp'~P ~i o~ ~~E ~ 9 ; Z ,~„' AV, t,~, ,~,t C S~~a ~OP~N o DR. U ~`~ P %- Y~~~~ ~ oa ~d> C/ y~acW~~ Ni ~ DR ALLAN ~ y t " ~ \ t ~~ F~ S~µPSON vQ AV 1 c?' p ~ ? p^~' oe~ bo QYc' ~~ CN ~a 'U ~or» ,~F\E`0 AVE. ~ H ,~ ~ ~ ,S~~r~ QY vp~`d a31) pAV~a ~ WA UpV . ~ y~ J.S`IJNd~3 a ~^ 1 ' "`J~ of of c E hq: cs. ~ ~ N~ER9 ~~ . $H~ PANKROS o4` ~,~. P .` ~ vS S ~ .A ~ • ~ ~ Mgt m o e ~E I NNURST AV~~ gyp. L~. w ; .~r ' OR' bo Z " i r ~ s~ \C~'.. Y RTON ~~ 4 is ~ s s , L ~P wNU~\ Y O°~P &,, eP o ° `ON,ORO o~/~~ tFa _ - - ~ d` 4'. / G1S Z PV OR `1r `~ OA OP F , ~ ` Z ' ~ s v ~ ~ 0~ O i~ O < Q N Z Z ~J.~ 0 ~ O ~ y) d (' a ~ _ li U p u m Q V) J (~ Q ~ Q V _ y ~ 0 ~ J ~ = G Q ~ ~ J J W m Lll ~ Q Q E O Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan The current South San Francisco General Plan was adopted on October 13, 1999. The land use designation for the project site is Mixed Used Community Commercial/Medium Density Residential. The proposed project would include a General Plan amendment to change the General Plan Designation toHigh-Density Residential and to modify language in section 3.1 1 -1-2. Zoning The existing zoning for the site is C-1 Retail Commercial. Other Agency Jurisdiction The proposed project would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The site does not contain jurisdiction wetlands, so no other agency would have jurisdiction over the site. C. Project Characteristics The proposed project site plan is portrayed in the following illustrations in this chapter: ~ Figure 3: Building Footprints ~ Figures 4 and 5: Dimensioned Building Plans ~ Figures 6 and 7: Grading Plans ~ Figures 8 through 13: Building Floor Plans ~ Figures 14 through 19: Unit Plans ~ Figures 20 and 21: Elevations ~ Figure 22: Preliminary Landscaping Plan Rezoning The proposed project site will be rezoned to residential R-3-L. The R-3-L zoning results in a net unit per acre density of 18.8 units, as the roadway is netted out. The "L"designation allows a maximum of 30 units per net acre on lots containing 10,000 square feet or more. 2. Project Buildings The proposed project consists of six apartment buildings which would have four floors of apartments over two levels of partially subterranean parking. The buildings would be situated end-to-end in an arc along the west side of Gellert Boulevard at the base of the cut slope. Five of the buildings would contain 48 apartments. One building would contain 40 apartments plus atwo-story recreation facility, for a total of 280 apartment units in all six buildings. Each building would also contain 79 garage parking stalls, for a total of 474 garage parking stalls on site. The proposed project would include a total of 46one-bedroom units, 142 two-bedroom units, and 92 three-bedroom units. October 4, 2001 Chapter ~, Page 4 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulation and Parking The proposed project includes a total of 630 parking stalls, the required numberfor a 280-unit high density residential development. As noted above, 474 of these parking stalls would be covered garage stalls. The remaining 156 would be surface parking stalls. The proposed project would have two entrances, one at the signalized intersection of Gellert Boulevard and the Orchard Supply store at the Gellert Square Shopping Center, and the other at the north end of the site. The main entrance would be called "Marbella Drive." Two one-way streets, "San Remo Court" and "Portofino Place," would circulate traffic through the parking areas and around the site. In addition, the south end of the site would provide emergency access. The project includes a residential shuttle service for the benefit of the project residents, funded through homeowner association dues. The four key elements of the shuttle program are: I) A contracted service (Shuttle Coordinator) to run the shuttle program for Marbella residents; 2) an on-site shuttle organized by the Shuttle Coordinator that would be oriented for the timing and destinations required by the Marbella residents; 3) preferential parking for shuttle participants; and 4) ridesharing organization for Marbella residents by the Transportation Demand Management Coordinator. 4. Landscaping The preliminary landscape plan for the proposed project calls for street trees clustered between the buildings and the sidewalk along Gellert Boulevard, screening the lower stories of the buildings. The spaces between the buildings, as well as the space between the buildings and the sidewalk along Gellert Boulevard, would contain open lawn areas and flowering groundcover placed along the edges of the lawns. The parking lots on the west side of the buildings, as well as the buildings themselves, would be surrounded by trees. Entryways would be accented by treatments such as flowering accent trees, color pots, benches, and raised planters. The open space on the western half of the site would be anon-irrigated hydroseeded slope planted with trees. 5. Grading and Fill Although the proposed project site is on a cut slope and extremely steep in some areas, the proposed development has been confined to the lower benches. According to the preliminary grading plan, approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soil would be graded from the site, while approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill would be needed. The project would also require retaining walls. The rear retaining wall would be constructed behind the buildings to retain the cut slope. This wall would vary in height up to a maximum of four 10 foot high sections. The walls would be stepped up the slope in four 10 foot high walls with a four foot separation. The walls would wrap continuously along the southern, western and northern edges of the parking lot. The other retaining walls would be in front of the buildings along Gellert Boulevard and along the road providing access to the commercial parking lots south of the site. These two walls would be a maximum of 5.33 feet each, and would also be stepped. D. Project Objectives The project proponents have the following objective for the project: October 4, 200] Chapter 3, Page 5 Marbetla Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report ~ Provide no less than 280 residential units with 70 of the units reserved for persons and families of low to moderate income ~ Provide needed parking to accommodate the units in a manner that is visually concealed from Gellert Boulevard and the neighborhood to the west of (uphill) the proposed project site. ~ Maximize the density of development of the project site, given the geological restrictions of the cut slope. ~ Retain the visual character of the residential neighborhood. ~ Preserve distance view from residences to the west of the proposed project site. E. Required Project Approvals Permits and approvals required from the City of South San Francisco include Certification of the an Environmental Impact Report; adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations; aPlanned Unit Development Permit; a General Plan text and map amendment; a re-zone of the property from C-1 Commercial to R3-L, high-density residential, vesting tentative and final subdivision map approval and approval of a Development Agreement. The applicant would also require an NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. October 4, 2U01 Chapter 3, Page 6 '1~ 2f31S3N~153h4, O J 'i~ 5lHt/IT1t~rY ! [1C W Q F-- W J U '~.~ ~~naswvi~~~ J ~ ~ U fr w a- ~ ~ ~ _J 'l~ N32~k Q }-- ~ a 'i~ iH9RlN4- J 'l~ NIMNR- ~ Win- v I ~ ~ ~` U~ ~V 'l~ A.1213HF~ U cL ~ ac U ~~O ~ "' G ovaN t a o ~ ~~ ~~5 p'1 W t~ V k ~ Z F- O O Z y d a o F- m Q O ~~ O ~' ~ ~ zQ ~ ~~ Z ~ O O z~ ~ Qo ~~ J CG w LC ,,. ~ Q Q ,.. F c LL_ ~_~I i :rt_,__ F„ -- r_-__r ,: l.~l ~ ~' i~ 0 U O ~, z( b ~E J F `r-r-~, ~a~ . v )# - 4 x 'SEE BELOIN~ ,' " f a I ,~ . ~ ,. r }~ - U I ~ I '~ C A I .o-o, - , a ~ ~ ;~f , ~ J i i 2~ !.. d I `~ - ~ A rtaa a ~ F- r ~ ~, i ;~i i a ~ i ~ ~; A ,.; , ~ ~ - y ~ ' Y -1 , ~.~ 1 .~ ` l~ _ ~ ~ ~ / \ \~\ ~~. ;,\ ~~ ~ .. ~ iJ ~\ a b~ . I \ Q.,; 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ^~~~~ r rN h ° ~ o N J 71 O w OJ t U ~~ ~ ¢ 2 1 n_ 2 a I ,~. ~ (~ i = _ I ~ "" --, .. ~ ;- { ~~II' ' ; Li; ~ --{ ! I IC ~ _ - ~: - -~ ~~.,~ i ---++s~--~~ i~-qq ,ll~lj I ~~ C 9~ v rwn e~ ~ I ~+ vi S34J,7 e _ A ,~, ~~ ~ i a , f T'Ta'~TS~R-~ ~ ~' - C`J -='tl '~ ~ ~ J i~ ~ ' Y ~ ~ ~, ~ ~_.. N ~ ~ ~~ i ~ L I ~ I w Tt=F"- -.~ i~ C7 ~ (~i olT(,~ -- o m r- w,.~.. ~ '~ -._ f~r~ I A `~ _ ~ ~ . I ~I \U~ ~ `I ' ~ ~ ,~% \~ /~ _- _ ~~ 1 ~,` ~ CV O l w a` U ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~- ,,; N J ~~i O U ~~ ~ n- ~ l \;. a \~ a ~ -~ ~. f •- ~ ~ ~~ _ ~1 ~ m~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~5~~ , ~ _, 4 ~~ " ~, ~~ ~~~~ ~ d' W c~ 0 0 v O N N o U m /~ V Z J m 0 z Q J a Z O Z w f rJ Z ~ O "~ _O N ~ _w >~ o~ m~ ~~ H ~ J Z ~ y ~ ~ Z OE = Z Q ~ J ~ J ~ W Z LO w a° E~ J O '~; .;~. . 'i. `'i , ~. i `a I ~ I ~V `' ` ~`~~~ l~l I I \` .,~ o ~8 >' a a I I - .; ~~ r I a. ~ .' \ I I 81fa_ 'ma ~~ - ~ 1 ~ I I \ ~y ~/ ; i ~, ,R~, JtlL51WISM ,I a I 'p - ~ ` - '.~ ` I ~ W ~~ A ° + ~ 1~a ~, , ', , ^. i ~- ' ,1 •d ' I I I ..v ~ ~ ii ,; 1 ~~~: o ~ ; V - G ,`d e, , . `.~~ ~ ~ " ~ tl'~,', e ICI (/ I I M ~ 'I ~ ~; 4 , ~I I~ =-a i O W ~- l ~ II ~~ I Z c7 "~ ' ~~I I' ~ o ~q t_ ' I li' ~ t~ n I O ~ `I 111 ~ 1'~~ i`!I II it I I G' - ~ I ,I ~ ~ aw~~. ~~~j I I ~E SE I~ '~7 ~~11~11.-I l/' ~, ~ I, I I ME ''~ ~ ~I D f ~ ~' ~ I Tr Y ~' i I ~ i ~ L ~ ~,! j i ~ ~ q I ~j ii'`'! _'p . ~ ~ Z I II I ip ' 1 I ; - -~ - ~ ~ I ~ ~' - ;I~~ I ~ ~E W r' I Ili l i - I I `1 --:ill ~ __ I .~ ~ ~ I ~I ' ~ ~-: =~~ ~ - ~','r k- ;~ _ I a, . t„ ~- i i ..~` SEE aeOVE ~ , f ' ~ 'I~~, I ' M ~ -_ ~> w ~_ IL W N Z J 00 Z J a Z ,O YI z W -~ °m 0 ~~ N 'V° N ~i 0 z 00 _~~ ~ U m Q ~ d Z Q N ~ O _~ Q ~ J ~ J W m w Q f 0 LL. ~ I i I I 1 1 --- I -, I ~ ~ f i ,,i l , I '~, ~ II' ',III I I l ~E BECOMh~~ , rr 1" I ~ ~ k I ~I - LI -_;~f Y II f III~i1 i ;, I ill it I I~ 1 .Iii i 1.1 I 1 - .I 1 i ~~ ;I II I ~ II i'l.''~, I rr ~ 1 `, ~ '~"~. _-1 111 11 li I II I~ ~ ~I ~ e~ ~ II -; .\~t 9 i ~,~ 1 _. j ~~ ~~ I: iiI III I II 1 ( Y .~, t I I ~I~.' I Ili ~ ~ ( 1 q. ~ I I r-, I U° ~ I .{', j I r rill 11 I~ i~ r' i I I° 1 , -1^111.1,11 n ,t l~ II ICI I ,I; ~ ? ~~~, I I I~ ~ ~I~I }I ~#/ I ~~~ r Ili. 1 tir I `` i t i Y 1 I'lll 11r I1'11 '1 I I iie t I f l r ~ rl i~l, 1 1 I~~~m ~ T „~ ~~~ [ ~VK I !II ~lt` Y'~~III IIII lit if ~I I 'I~` 1 i^t ~ I i ~.. L ~~,j/~ ~II !I ~! ~~III ~ i Itll II -~~ ~1 ~I p I ~ I~ ~~ r~l~r II'1..:.r -.ll llllilla111, li. -~= Ilp II!x~'. ~,~ I;~ ill;. ~` t._. i+I~/~II If I!i' ~ II~ I I Ii~~~, j y,l ~~' f , I ~ ~I r 1 II II IIII iI ~~ III II I I ; ~ ~ ~ Y l y',I ~ il~e4. u xr y ~ i l1 I I III - ~ Il I u' J ~ 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I ~ ~i ~I llII1 II l~ ~ pl~. il,p 1 JJ I~ a~ ~ 1 I II !_ ' _ ~. ~~l ,/ 2 ~('-" ul I;~ I ~ I, II 'IIII ~ I l~a ~, II~; i I~ ` ~ ~1 'r s t ~ ,: 1 1 III I i I~I 1 ~ II ~ , as1 - N I ('11111 II II JII (IIII II / / // ~' _ Ir/ I I III II~IIIII I. ~ ' ; ~ ~ ~ t 1 ~ i !-~ ~ ;~I`I ICI ~ ~ I? il' k ~~ - cYJ 1 ' l l i I'I~I~I III I~ !~ , II I ~ 1 i ,~ + < I I I'.I 1 I`~r' ~ ~ -i.. ~ ;I ~ I ~1'lllllll~ i ~ I~I h I Ijl ;t~ I I 1 ` .~ /' yl m _ ~ JI ~~: Ilil ~P ~'Ill1 ~I,!,. Y ~/ ~ 1 ! i ' 2. 1._., ~ I .n I ~ ~ I F. ~- =.e~` I I1 1 I ~ V I II j I Illl i I ~~ I '! „ i! a r r 1 ~~ ~ I t J!I'ylll1i11 l ~ i j1 IIII IIi li: II 1 CD._ ~ I ~ i ,-7 jf ~ [ / F -ill~II/lll~il;l, III11!II I. '11;111 1- a I V v, ~/, f I 1 NO i3 ~ r I I 1 I r-7 ~ i r C LL"" laf z f Fr t 1~ IIII ~1 t!~ I~ .jil I I I r 1 ~ t 1 I ~ ti l I; I ~~ ~. ~ I i~ t, ~ ' ~; ~I ~1 ~'I l~i I I~ III' Il ~ ~, 11 Ili ~°.~ ~ ~ ° 0 ~. ~. C9 ~' I/ j Ill ~I I I i 1 I\ I I ,~ 1 ~j~ '~ 4~ I ,f I11,. IIII 'I .I''i~liy I ill ~ 1 OI t 1 a I~~ 1 ~j~l YII~ ~I Ill l~~il 1 ~.'I I ~ ~j. t ~;, I, ~ i ml no~./cl Lll i t III Iy.' ~, ' l l ~l, I I l 1 ' ~ II: I I \ , •\\ .r~.I `~ 11I 1 IU;II,I ~~lilj,ll (I I i i 3 ° ' ~ /i'~I~' iijl 1 i°Ili; 11 II i 11 nT I'~1 ~ar* ~1, t ° \\ i - ~ 111 I'IIIIIII tllll'III ;; ~ I (,IIII, ~ I~~~ ~.I ~~ ~ t Y~.. `~t,~ --~I Mrs 'I . , II, ICI 1 ~ , ;I. ~ ~ ', _; ' ~- ' ~ ~ ~ , ,' l I ~ 11' IIII 11' 'I LI' I,I l I e / ,'~ i °'~ "-~~ - il, t{.~~II Il lj ll~ ~ I II~Ii III Ili I i/~ t~' r\. 1~~. , y~ 1 1 ~ ' 1111~jIlI lll~lll~~'I~ ~lil ~ i i/; i)a~ `~I` 1~ ~ t II.. II I I~ 1 IIII II .il II ~ / ~ Y / 1 _7~- ! !I ~11:~1 IIIIIIIII~I •ai III ~ ~ ~;~ ~~~ i _-h ~ II I ~ II ~I I ~ I 1 I / ~Y•, 1~I h! Il Ilf I I I. I I l e~,, ~ "~ e \ .. ~-.~~/ IIj ~II~I+~ III I1~~'ji IIII .I! II i I,yg~ 1 ~' '~` ~ ~.,~~ /1 ~ r~'IIII~IIII ~r~III I IIII / I IIrII 'li ~II ~J ~_ \ i. ~, ~ n e,~: 77"^" I I I r IL I,i11It IIII I IIII I'I 'i I / I ~I~' ~C ~\4 / ~ ~ ~qif- I I I ~ r.I „1 ,I FFF , ~r r ~ ~ ~, ~~ ! ~ ~ s ~ ~ ,~1 1 `I ~ VIII I~I I IIj .n !I~ I ~ ' j 1 ^rl~ .=~ ' ~ V , \ ~ ~, I ~Ih r II,! nu it I i l ~ r~ - ~ ~v ,.% . ~ ~yf,t I , ~ Ii Ilhl II11 , 111 i . I III i it ~ r~~ ~ ;rl•! ~\ lift, ,L f~,~l~~y/~l~~%~r1 iI11lI ~r~ ~ I ~~~j' \Jc_~j \~,~~~ 1~,; I f i^I' ~i ~l~~f l'il ~llll ~ / I l: ' ~ i i ( I r 1 ,,'`y ~ ~ ~'Y/ 1 ~ l~ Iii ~ Ih~l~ r ~yi i __~, r, l -//lI l it ~`]II~/11/ / rt--~~ y i , I ~ ~ i I I ~ ~r II lI it 'r~/ t ~t1 `~ ~- -_~ ~ `fir ~ I I I III ll ~~~ ~r 'i„ Il,~ r, 1, ~-~1.;.- jc~ ~ ~ -t. i ~ ,.r', s i ~ I II /' ..ff, i ilh, ~'}~`"'"" I I p cJi ~,`, \ ~ I' l 1111III~~ ~ I 1 ~ ¢~ ~~ t~~~ ~1_ - ~~,, I r ~, ~ 1 11 Q. d f I ~ I I 1 " ,~ ~ ~~I' " `tea , ~~~ 1 ~~ ~~ r __ _. ~ ,; _ T ~ :: ,~ --~~' I _ - ~i r _ ,i-} -_ ,,,~ _ ~ -7f t o - ' 1 - -- -~ --- - -- \` i ~'` i / II 1 -- ~ ~ ~ 1' y' ~< ~ Y4 I I R Q] at ~ ( ~^4~t i ~vf' 1 1 w ~ ,~ -~~[C ?~Jjll:~, i 9 1 .is ~) ~ ~n ~ f r ~ Y~v __ tD V Z ~ O Q Cfl ~ ~ ~. a m Q ~ N. a ~ ,^ Z _ ~ J Z Q ~ ~ --~ L ' w = z m ao J ~ ~ _ J ) O W Z LL m w ~ ~ Z a w a f ~ J U o. O LL Z a N M O O to \ ~" ~ i ~.. . ,\ .j \i, ~' / L \ 1. In I ~~C ~za ~ ~.~ v =~~°~I ^~ I t ~ h~l~~,- ,~. \ ' I'. \ 1 ~~ • •x\~ ~ j U VA l~~ 1 I ~,Al. = U A 1 ~ ' __ -_ ~: ~ $ 1, , ~ ~ ~ 1 s ~ t 1 w + s R cr _ \ , ~to I 1 \ s 11 I R '; _ 1~ p '~ ~1 i. ~'\ .~/~S~VL~~~ I }I i 1~ I ~L 1~ '1 r 1 `~Vl' r Sit I KI ( II1~ ,~ 12~ 11' ~ tlq.'1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i. ~~-- ,li~ I ~21II ~I I, 1111 \.i 1'`Il 1'1 ~2 I ~ ff vl 2 Ii jAI{ 1\ Y11 1 ~~3'. _I~ 1 ~II 1 IIL, 11 + yy ~il I yr - Y 1 1 ~~~)I ~ VF, \I( ~` - I 1 ~' f. 1111 ~i' ~ ~ ', 11 ~ , 1 2 w 1, 1,1~ 11 41, 1 II 1 '~ ~ 1 `~ I ' ~ Y \ I ~ 1, 1111 ~ II III 1 ~I II I~ ~ 1 ~ I t ~y i ~- II III,I', ~ `~` II~'III ~ 1 ~ p `11 I a ,,, i ,g~' -~ ~1 ~ ~ I , I"~I JIIIIII 'II 1 I. , ! IIIII,~I~III ! ~ "~~ ,2 P~. 1*,~ a ;,i\ ~ `', `l+ Ili I II I` II~L 111 I ' ; ~ a (~, 2 1 1 i q'1 I i I~2 I I it Ill 11111 4 ~. III IIt II g ~ 11 y- ~ 1111111 't i i III , 11 IIII _,1 ~ 4' ~I 'i i~ V - ~,,,~ ' y I E III j1 IAi`~. 41 11 111 s c l ~ u1 ..;}~^ {'~ 1 1i1 1 II! T. 111 I I!VII 'III 1 ;!~ ' 111 1111 i ~~;.N ll. ~ - `~ ~ 1 1 :, i I 111 I ~~"" ~i, 111`' Illlll.d,~ 1 \ I j`I1111 w~ i 11111 I Ir" :P { ~• r ' I I~ II ' .'dIIIIIIII dlilll;111 p1 i .III II N 2 ~`v ~ l ~ li!,f 4, Iil i l I I ' I1'I I IIII!' I jl I I ~, .1 ~. j~' Ir !~~~-~~II' ,~o~lj~illl~',-~I~III 11 1 Ir p ~, still ,!II x 2 li 'n; I~ 'n ~ ~ " 2 'IIi'I i III) IIIlII1'!1 \li f II I ~ 1 ~ i~\t' 'i lilj!~I J t r \~ , I+4I IIII ' I I . !III ~ ' I I ! 'I I 11'1 111 I :Ill . Is I~ ;L'II~`(;I ,IIII, i III( '~ `.y'Ia !lul!1 I, III ~ i II I~` ; I II I I I h' ! 'I .I ~ 11 ~ F I III! III'll, 1 II ~2 i I'~~~ I Y` I I 1 ~~\~~'' i 1 ~1 i 'I IIII, ~jil .I,'~I~~l: i 'I: illl IlI 2^,~ I ~t ,_i-' G •(, I_ I IIII :'~. I II IIII I I :'; II I 'ri I I II`iI1I ~ __ ~' ~ ~ { ~,. II I i 111 I, I III! I i; ;E , .-, i 1 j 1 i ~ ti., i~Ilihlil~~.IIII ' ily„III Ir I ~ ~I1 E I ~-I ~1 I'1. ~i~~'',Illitl`~II~V III lI!i; I ill;fy,' ;T~'16O~,I I.i + ,C -----7~ I ~ II i''IiLI, I II,I l .h I •li~ If' ~ Ili ~ 1 ~Ii I~ D ~ 1 ,~ ~a 1~ I.I~I II ~~ 3II'~ ~ ~ I F 1 ~~- 1 ~ Ik;, 'l. I I .Jill' (~., it l il' 1 ,. ".~ ~ 1 -~ I I 1 IL } I I. I ,I1 1 1 I ll ill I I it ' ~ rl 1~~~ Ip I lil~ ,,{I~~11., i 1' ,:. I.-' _ Il~yi li ~ , Tt~/~~ I~~~ illl ~ , I ~il~ ~IIf ~i ,' I I J!I_.~ ~ I V~:II~I 1 2 I r b~~n I I. ~I a I ~ I JIII I'~ III~j'. std{ li ~ ~I ~I I / I ~ I I I~I W IIII~IIIII i 4 i!II jIII I Ill,l IIIIJ I III ,II ~ i I I ~t ~ 11 1 IL .fir,, . !I~ 11 I I (!,I II~I~~ ~, ~~. i i~ ~ l1I ~ r!` ! ' ~~l TI I~ j III i Iji IIIIII 2II~I!III ~II~ i If IIII; i li ' ~~h ~ 2 i' ~*I ! 'i ~ ~ i I Z I I _I ~ I ,~'~I iII ,~ .III IIII Iil~ :III `t ~ li w . ~ ' 1,. il,l ~ ~ ill~•I!II~ i II .1 ~~' t Il I ;. ' ~I , li III IIII II ~ I, ~~~ ~,' ~`i _ ~~ 4: t ' a '~..! ,II~ ~,il~I~ilii~~~^;'~~~~~i~lll iUjll lil ? ~ -~ ' '~' ~,;I ~j ; , i ;~~ i~ I_ , I , pR I 1 s , i II II I Ills II 1 IIII II III; i ~ ~ I l~i II ut~ ;) i ~ II~ + I' 1 1 I' I I I 1 2 n I I I I ' ''' I C I ~ II - I ~ ~ ~~iIIIII I I I~ II~~ 1 I II III I :IIII i ~ I I i II I I:il '`l • ~ I I ~ AA I ~ IxFL (/~g I I.~ IIII I Ill III II. I' I I fa n Ir rl~ III III, I I I i'I III - I'I I i, I ` I ~ `I ~` ` I i~ II~II~ iI `~II II I I II , I l~l iI' I~I~II l ~ I I I ~I II I~ 191 411 i~ (~ NI I III I I 111j li'II I Ii' I II I I L;!LI, {`I IIiY i I.2II t l 11il 111 rli II'Ill IIII VIII ilhl I VIII ( i I I II 1~~ ~ •r' Ilj~ iI I~ 111 I 1I~h~ ~III'IIIII '':IIII I i~l~ i i I IIII Ir7- rl II ~IIUI i - "j-_~ill~l•Ii ~II~I~~I,ill Ii.iI,l l~lllil~lllnWWW ; x I'~dilllllli ~~ I~-,- rill i ~I~;1 ; .~I W ^~^ ,J •.J LL W ,~ V Z Q J M~ W Z J a Z D ,~ V N .9' 0 N M 0 ~O ~o Z O~ `H d O m Q ~ n. H ZQ N F O 2 L Q O J W LC ~. K ~ ~ ,. 0 R t- s~ ~f a~N F ~ - f --- -- _- - -- --L -- - - - - e~ - -- -- __ I - ~ -- ~-~--- ;u - -~ -aa -----~ ~ - - ~ -- - y ~ _-` -~-- w _- __~- -~ i i i n ~ ~ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ____ i ~___ E- __ -_ - _;- i i w a H a N er W Z Q J a w W O J Z t- O °~ _ O ti n. ~_ ~ o~ fn V ~ Q N ~ C7 ZQ y ~ z 0 5 =z Qo J ~ J ~ W Z !0 w tY. C7 Q w f N U O ------ --- -- -- I _- - a I I y 1 I a a I I ~ - -- ~~ 1 1 -_ _ .-__~ I I --_ - -.__-~ C~_ __._- S _~ .. .r _ I I .-._._ _._~_ .-1`~---_ - _- an -_~ ~eC-~ on j . ___- 1 1 '~\\ I 1 I 1 ~zR~jj _ -age -__ __ _ _ _ -__ _ (#}:-_ _ __ _ __ K86 n I I I I _ _ I ~ I I 1 ~ €, ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ I I 11 I1 -- -- }- t- I I - - --- - ' -- I I rn Z z w Q po ~ J to °- ~ a ~ III _ ~ W ~ (~ m Q a ~~ ~ N Q ~ ~ Z Q ~ ~ w p a =~ a. a o J ~ J W [~ ~n Q III lL O W (~ Z Q J a O O J r LL ...! a V a H Z t- O `~ _O a °- _ w >_~ o~ m" ~a N ~ J Z Q V1 ~ z O~ = Z Q ~ J J > w Z m w ~o aw sN U O Z a W J ~ a ~ ~ ~. O J LL 2 H Q Z Q M Z N J Q u_ a F- z o~ y~ >w 0 mQ ~ a- C7 Z ~ ~ Z O x Qo J ~ J w' m~ ~o aw E ~ f V N W ~_ LL H J u Q LL Z LO r Q W U W 2 3 Z Q J a O O J LL H a z~ O ~ _ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ o~ m U ~ d N ~ J Z Q ~ F- z W Q = L Q O J ~ J ~ W L LO w ~ ~ Q w EN 0 LL M ~ Z ~ ~ U W d' J d y w ~ U o t~. Q m Q LL ~~ Z N -- O _ ~' z4 I- `" z Q ~ w ~ a = U Q~ W J - ~ J W d' f" Q ~ 3 E Z u_ Q J a O O J LL 0 Z U W N /CLS W r~ r~ ~ r ~ ~ a •-~ o [f - Z •- O O ~ Q N . w ~ J > ~ (~ d 0 ~-- U ~ ~ d ~ Z ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ H F- w ~ ~ 2Z QO J J 1 W z m W ~ Q Q LL) t/t U O GCS ~.71 N N ~ ,,.a m o aN~ ~ - a . '~ K N ~ - A .,, x _~ _ a~ -- A -~- ~ ~-~ ~: -~ ~ ~~~_ N i ~ ~ i ~ ~+ p N Fr a ^~ ~ - M O >C c~ ~ -t- - ~ b - - '' ~ ~ --r.. _. '~./ ~ ~ o~ © _ ~ ~Q - N (~~ J „S-.££ lA N Z , .~. Q ~ ~ Q N a ~ J (9 a o J ~ ~ ~ a Z v1 ~ ~ z~ H F- 7_ i _ ' Q ~ J ~ J w to a° f U uY K.L .~ ~w M N C~ ~ M iM-~ .--~ ~„~ W O aN~ t0 M Z F- ~ O O W Q N ~ w ~ -~ > ~ C7 a o ~ ~ ~ u ?~ Z ~' ~ ~ - z ~, ~ ~z o~ 2 7 Qo ~ _~ J ~ W z m w ~~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ 0 ~- ..,~ ~w M ~ ~ ~ '--~ ,..a o4 0 P, N •--~ r ~1.~ 4. Q M Z a J a F- Z z 00 N d ~ U mQ ~- zQ ~~ O =z Q O J W 00 w ~~ Q E v O ~w ui w7 ~lY a+ ~w W ~' N ~ z ~ ~. a~a~ a ~ .-~ CO 'v' Z ~ '" ' O ~ O W , ~ Q " ~ 2 . w ~ J >~ C9 a o F- LL U ~ j Q Z a N ~_ J Z Q N ~ Z o~ = L 0 a ~ J _ J ~ W Z Of! w a° f ~~ ~ _ U O ~~ ..~ cv w ~~~ a~~ aMr rn w c~ LL Q z a J a F- Z z~ 00 ~^ o~ mQ ~~ zQ ~~ O =z Qo J J W tG LL' ~n a E O u~~1~ x C7 Q a m 0 )/~ . L" r~ ~~ ~~ ~.; ' ~ '•~ ~~ .1 .. ~` ~~ .' o .. _L_i ... ~,. ~~I~, ~ . ~.~ _- __ ~. _ i ~ . Lr~,'t -- -'~'~ O N W LL Z Q W J W 0 w F w a W J ca H w J W Z t- O O ~ ~- _ :u p F to U ~ Q a H F Z Q w ~ Z O~ =z Qo J ~_ J ] W z fL w ~ Q Q w ~~ U O N w C7 Z O H Q W J W W W H X W ZF O~ ~a _~ >~ o~ m U ~ ~ ~~ ~ J Z Q in ~ ~~ O~ = z Q O J W m w ~ ~ Q L E ~ V O {~,, r,l ~,'-~ :: ~_: ~i';: r ;: `:, I ~,~~~-. rr; P i ~ ~ ~'E~~~; p ~ " ~~,; ~i ~F. t ~~ s ~'~ f+~(( Y3 Y ` A ~ ~'• ;il I f _ _ _ _ .-~ ,~~ N Z Z Q K O ~ J y a ~ a ~~ ~ W p F- li a m u Q ~ ~ U v' ~ v~ t~ p Z c Z mz a o~ = Z } O ~ J Q J ~ Z W Z t0 w Q ~ J ~ V' W ~; ~ O a '~- v O N 0 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Environmental Evaluation This Chapter consists of eight sections that evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Marbella Subdivision. Each section follows the same format, and consists of the following subsections: 1) The Existi~ig Setti~ig section describes current conditions with regard to the environmental factor reviewed. 2) The Stcnulards of Significa~ice section tells how an impacts is judged to be significant in this EIR. These standards are based on the CEQA Guidelines. 3) The /inpact Discussion gives an overview of potential impacts, and tells why impacts were found to be significant or less-than-significant. 4) The Im/~ucts and Mitigation Measures section numbers and lists identified impacts, and provides measures that would mitigate each impact. Each numbered impact is significant prior to mitigation, unless it is specifically identified as less-than- significant. Mitigation measures have been suggested that would reduce most identified significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. The project would have significant traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. All mitigation measures are stated with conditional language ("should") because they are recommendations, and not conditions of approval for the project unless they are specifically adopted as conditions by the City. Under CEQA, an EIR is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce identified impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, the City is not required to adopt these mitigation measures, even after the EIR is certified. The City could instead require alternative mitigation measures that are equally effective, or it could find that the identified mitigation measures are infeasible and allow the project without mitigation under a finding of overriding consideration. If the City adopts the suggested mitigation measures as conditions of approval, then their language will be changed from the discretionary "should" to the mandatory "shall." October 4, 20111 Chapter 4. Page I Marbella Housing; Subdivision 4.1 Land Use and Public Policy Draft Environmental Impact Report This section includes a description of the existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site and an analysis of the potential impacts the project may have on those land uses. The potential policy impacts of the proposed project and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in this section. a. Existing Setting i. Existing Land Uses The project site is currently undeveloped. The surrounding areas are a mixture of residential, retail and commercial land uses. ~ North of the Project Site. To the north are low, medium and high density residential developments. ~ South of the Project Site. To the south are low, medium and high density residential developments. ~ East of the Project Site. To the east is aneighborhood-oriented retail and commercial development. ~ West of the Project Site. To the west are low, medium and high density residential developments. ii. Regulatory Setting The South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance are the primary policy documents for regulating development in the project area. Additionally, a Design Plan for the Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard area was completed in 1991. Applicable policies from each of these documents are discussed below. (1) City of South San Francisco General Plan The South San Francisco General Plan specifies land use designations in Chapter Two. The Westborough area is addressed specifically in ChapterThree, Planning Sub-Areas. The proposed project site is currently designated as a mix between Medium Density Residential and Community Commercial. The project would include a General Plan amendment which changes the designation toHigh-Density Residential and modifies language in section 3. ] 1-I-2. The maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for High-Density Residential is I.O, with 18.1 units per acre which can be increased to 30.0 units per acre. The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains a number of "Guiding Policies" and "Implementing Policies" that address development concerns in the City. Policies relating to specific issues are noted in their respective chapters. The following are the most relevant policies in considering the proposed project in general: October a, 2not Chapter 4.1, Page 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report ~ Maximi<.e opportunities for residential development, including throccgh infil! and redevelopment, without impacti~ig existing neigl2borhoods or creutirlg conflicts with industrial operatiais (2-G-6). ~ Steep hillside areas iil excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites sl2ould follow existing contours to the greatest exte~zt possible. Grading should be kept to u minimum (2-/-17). ~ Require site design features, fire retarda~it building materials, and adegcaue access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the City (8.4-1-3). ~ The Fire Ha<ard Reduction Recommendations for the Westborough area is for a combination of hand ctnd mechanical labor to clear a 100 foot buffer arou~id residences. [page 266 GP] Policies relating to biological resources such as special status species and wetlands are discussed in Chapter 4.4 Biology. Policies relating to housing, population and economic development is discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A), Section 9. The project site is one of the few remaining sites in the City for residential development. The project would house approximately 680 persons. The proposed units would be relatively affordable, as compared to single-family home costs, thereby permitting employed persons working in the area to live closer to their jobs. The proposed project would assist the City in reaching its Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) goal with respect to housing production. ABAG's s housing production estimates for the City of South San Francisco is 1,331 units of which 768 are required to be affordable. The project would provide 70 units of affordable housing. (2) Westborough/Gellert Design Plan The Westborough/Gellert Design Plan was published in ]991. This Design Plan addresses design issues for the specific study area, and is to be used in conjunction with the General Plan and the Zoning ordinance. The purpose of the "...Design Plan is to develop an urban design strategy to improve and enhance the visual quality of this important area by providing a focus for the neighborhood, thereby improving the representative image of the City of South San Francisco."' The Westborough/Gellert Design Plan also provides detailed design and development guidance for an area that includes the proposed project site. The guidelines indicate there is a desire to provide homes inclose proximity to commercial and office uses, while ensuring that the development of vacant parcels does not negatively impact the existing residential and commercial areas. Given that existing development in the area has occurred to such an extent as to preclude implementation of the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan and that other areas in the City have been designated to achieve similar effects through the implementation of the Transit Overlay District, the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan is no longer required to effectuate the goals of the City. The General Plan text amendment would modify section 3.1 1, Westborough/Gellert Design Plan, from the General Plan to make adherence to the Design Plan discretionary rather than mandatory. As a result, ~ Suuth San Francisco: IVesthoruu~~/i Grllc~rr Dcsi,Kn Plun. April I. 1991. Prepared b~~ Da~~i~ L. Gates ~~ Associates. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.1, Page 2 Marbella HousinK Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report significant impacts would be assessed based on the zoning code and General Plan policies. (3) City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance The current zoning for the site of the proposed project is C1-Retail Commercial. b. Standards of Significance The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to policy and land use conformity if it would: ~ Conflict with adopted plans, policies and goals of the City. ~ Conflict with the applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. ~ Physically divide an established community. ~ Be inconsistent with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an aQeney with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. ~ Be inconsistent with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. c. I~npact Discussio~z i. City of South San Francisco General Plan The proposed project would be consistent with the amended General Plan designation for the site, which is High-Density Residential in the following ways: ~ The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the project would be 0.99, which is less than the maximum permitted FAR of 1.0, for High Density Residential. ~ The project would have ] 8.8 dwelling units per gross acre and 20.8 per net acre which is within the 18.1 to 30 units per acre range permitted for High Density Residential. ~ The proposed project would provide 70 units of affordable housing and a total of 280 housing units. This is consistent with the plans, policies and goals of the City. ~ The proposed project site does not contain wetlands or habitat for special status species. Therefore, the project would be consistent with General Plan policies pertaining to habitat and biological resource conservation, particularly the policies which address protecting sensitive habitat for special status butterfly species and wetland preservation. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.1, Page 3 Marbella Housing; Subdivision Draft Em~ironmental Impact Report ii. City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance The proposed project includes a zoning amendment to change the zoning of the site from Cl-Retail Commercial to High Density Residential, R-3-L. The zoning code is currently under revision to reflect the land use designations in the 1999 General Plan. As a result, the site would be re-zoned from C-1 Commercial to Medium Density Residential/Community Commercial. The re-zone of the property from Medium Density Residential/Community Commercial to High Density Residential would not create any land use and policy impacts since the City has other underutilized C-I Commercial and Medium Density Residential zones. Additionally, the City of South San Francisco is a major area particularly for the biotech industry. Currently the City has less housing opportunities than jobs. The provision of 280 units of housing with 70 units for low to moderate income households would reduce the gap between the jobs and housing. iii. Land Use The proposed project is consistent with the following land uses and policies, and would therefore create less-than-sig~iificnnt impacts related to these uses and policies: ~ The proposed project is ahigh-density residential development which would blend harmoniously with the surrounding land uses. Goods and services are within close proximity of the site that would serve the future residents. ~ The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. ~ The proposed project would not be inconsistent with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect ~ The proposed project would not be inconsistent with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. d. Impacts acid Mitigatio~r Measures No significant impacts with respect to land use or public policy would occur as a result of the proposed project, so no mitigation measures are required. October 4, toot Chapter 4.1, Page 4 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Traffic This section describes the existing traffic and circulation conditions in the vicinity of the project. It also provides an analysis of the potential impacts the project may have on these conditions and suggests mitigation measures for those impacts. A. Existi~ig Setting 1. Regulatory Setting The Transportation Element of the South San Francisco General Plan contains information on existing circulation conditions as well as goals and policies for the development of future circulation systems within the city. There are also several regional agencies that oversee and coordinate transportation improvement programs that affect South San Francisco. These agencies are the following: • San Mateo County Transportation Authority • City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County(C/CAG) • Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) a. South San Francisco General Plan The Transportation Element of the South San Francisco General Plan includes goals and standards related to traffic tlow. A complete discussion of service standards and terminology is located in the Standards of Significance Section below. Traffic Operations and Service Standards listed in the City's General Plan include the following: • Strive to maintain Level of Service (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-8) • 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 from the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit (4.2-G- 9) • Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS standards (4.2-I- 10) 2. Existing Roadway Network Two freeways carry regional traffic through the City of South San Francisco, and a network of arterial, collector and local streets move traffic within the city. Both freeways, U.S. ] Ol and I-280 run north-south, connecting San Francisco and Santa Clara County. October 4, ZOOI Chaplet 42 Page 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Regional Access. Regional access to the project area is provided by Interstate(I) 280 and State Route (SR) 35. • I-280 is an interstate highway that runs north-south through the project area and provides access to the site via an interchange with Westborough Boulevard. • State Route 35 (Skyline Boulevard) runs north-south to the west of the project site. Local Access. Local access is provided by Gellert Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard and King Drive. Direct project access would be from Gellert Boulevard. • Westborough Boulevard is a major arterial roadway that runs generally east-west. • King Drive is afour-lane collector roadway that runs east-west between Skyline Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard and beyond. • Gellert Boulevard is afour-lane arterial roadway running in a general north-south direction west of and parallel to I-280. 3. Existing Traffic Conditions This study analyzes AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions at the following study intersections 1. Gellert Boulevard/King Drive 2. Gellert Boulevard/Rowntree Way 3. Gellert Boulevard/Pac-N-Save/Orchard Supply Hardware driveway 4. Gellert Boulevard/McDonalds Driveway 5. Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Boulevard 6. Olympic Drive/Westborough Boulevard 7. Galway Place/Westborough Boulevard 8. Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway a, Vehicle Turning Movement Counts Vehicle turning movement counts were taken during two weekday peak periods on December 12-13, 2000 and January 17-18, 2001. The counts were conducted during the following peak periods: • AM peak period- 7 a.m. - 9 a.m. • PM peak period- 4 p.m. - 6 p.m. b. Intersection LOS Methodologies Level of Service(LOS) is a common measure of traffic service that uses letters A through F to indicate the amount of traffic congestion and delay. The LOS concept was developed to correlate numerical traffic volumes to subjective descriptions of traffic performance at intersections which are the controlling bottlenecks of traffic flow. LOS levels are qualitatively described as follows: • LOS A indicates free flowing traffic conditions. • LOS B indicates stable conditions with acceptable delays. • LOS C indicates stable conditions with slightly longer acceptable delays. October 4, 2ou1 Chapter 4.2 Page 2 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Repor[ • LOS D indicates average delays in the range of 25 to 40 seconds. • LOS E is approaching capacity. • LOS F represents conditions at or above capacity, with average delays over 60 seconds. LOS A-LOS C are considered to be fair to good traffic flows. LOS D is considered acceptable for peak hours in urban areas. LOS E or LOS F are typically considered unacceptable levels of service. Table 2 defines the levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Signalized Intersections Traffic conditions at signalized intersections have been evaluated for AM and PM peak hours using the operational analysis procedures from the Transportation Research Board's 1997Highu~ay Capacity Manual. The level of service (LOS) methodology qualitatively characterizes traffic conditions associated with varying levels of traffic. A LOS determination is a measure of expected average delay per vehicle at an intersection. Impacts to intersections may occur outside of the typical peak hour. For example, occasional midday surges of traffic may result in temporary congestion. However, for the purposes of this EIR, only the AM and PM peak hours have been analyzed, as this is when adjacent street and regional roadway traffic volumes are at their highest levels. Unsignalized Intersections Traffic levels of service (LOS) for unsignalized intersections were calculated using the 1997 High-ra~~ Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board) methodology. At unsignalized intersections, each approach to the intersection is evaluated separately and assigned a LOS. The level of service is based on average total delay at the intersection, in seconds per vehicle. Table 2 Los Thresholds: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Average Stopped Average Level of Delay Total Delay Service (seconds/vehicle) Description (seconds/ Description vehicle) A Delaya10.0 Free flow; minimal to no delay a10 Little or no delay B 10.0<Delaya20.0 Stable Clow, but speeds are >10 and a15 Short traffic delay beginning to be restricted by traffic condition; sli ht delays C 20.0<Delaya35.0 Stable tlow, but most drivers >15 and a25 Average traffic delay cannot select their own speeds and feel somewhat restricted; acceptable delays October a, 2UO1 Chapter 4.2 Page 3 Marbella Housint; Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Average Stopped Average Level of Dela Total Delay Service (seconds/vehicle) Description (seconds/ Description vehicle) D 35.0<Delaya55.0 Approaching unstable Flow, and <15 and a35 Long traffic delay drivers have difficulty maneuvering; tolerable delays E 55.0<Delaya80.0 Unstable flow with stop and go; >35 and a_50 Vcry long traffic delay delavs F Dclay>80.0 Total breakdown; congested conditions with excessive delays >50 Extreme delays potentially affecting other traffic movements in the intersection Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington D.C. 1997 Total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. This time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last- in-queue position to the first-in-queue position. iii. Freeway Segments To evaluate the existing freeway traffic conditions, as well as provide a basis for comparison of conditions before and after project-generated traffic is added to the freeway system, the level of service (LOS) was identified at segments along nearby freeway facilities. Table 4 defines levels of service for freeway conditions. iv. CMP Roadway Segments The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) identities several roadways and segments of roadways that are of key importance to regional circulation. These roadway segments may be surface streets or sections of freeway. For the proposed project site, the following CMP Roadway Segments have been identified: • Interstate 280 • Interstate 380 • Skyline Boulevard (State Route 35) Table 5 outlines LOS standards for CMP Roadway Segments. c. Existing Intersection Levels of Service: Table 4 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at all of the study sites. In general, the study intersections operate at acceptable to excellent levels of service (LOS D or better) under October =t, tout Chapter 4.2 Page 4 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report the existing condition. However, the intersection of Westborough Boulevard/Olympic Drive operates at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour, and the intersection of Gellert Boulevard and the Westborough Shopping Center operates at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour. Table 3 Level of Service Standards for CMP Roadway Se gments Route Roadway Segment Baseline (1990-91) LOS Current LOS Standard I SF County Line to Linda Mar Blvd D E 1 Linda Mar Blvd to Frenchman's Creek Rd D E 35 SF County Line to Sneath Lane C E 35 Sneath Lane to I-280 E F 35 I-280 to SR 92 A B 82 SF County Line to John Daly Blvd A E 82 John Daly Blvd to Hickey Blvd A E 82 Hickey Blvd to I-380 A E 82 I-380 to Trousdale Drive A E 101 SF County Line to I-380 E E 101 I-380 to Millbrae Avenue D E 280 SF County Line to SR 1 (North) N/A E 280 SR 1 (North) to SR 1 (South) D E 280 SR 1 (South) to San Bruno Avenue C D 380 I-280 to U.S. 101 F F 380 U.S. 101 to Airport Access Road A C Mission Street SF County Line to SR 82 A E Geneva Avenue SF County Line to Bayshore Blvd A E Bayshore Blvd SF County Line to Geneva Avenue A E Source: Final Congestion Management Program for 1999, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Table 4 LOS Definition: Freeway Segments Level of Description of Traffic Condition Service A Free-flow operations B Reasonable free-flow, and free-flow speeds are maintained _ C Flow with speeds and or near the free-flow speed D Level at which speed begins to decline with increasin flows E Operation at capacity F Breakdowns in vehicular flow October a, 2001 Chapter ~-t2 Page 5 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington D.C. 1997 d. 2002 Background Conditions. The Background Condition includes the existing traffic plus traffic which is expected to be generated by other recently approved projects. These are projects which will be completed prior to completion of the proposed project. A complete list of approved projects used in the development of the background conditions is located in Appendix B. The approved projects included in the background conditions are located in the City of South San Francisco, Pacifica, Daly City and San Bruno. A complete list of approved projects and their projected trip generation is included in Appendix B. Approved projects would generate an additional 705 total AM peak hour and 406 total PM peak hour vehicle trips. The proportion of these trips that would travel through the study intersections was used for the intersection LOS analysis under the background condition. Table 6 in Appendix B provides a summary of the AM peak and PM peak hour trip generation for the approved developments in the background condition. Table 6 provides a summary of the AM peak and PM peak hour intersection levels of service under the background scenario. The addition of the background approved projects to the existing traffic conditions results in the following level of service changes to study intersections: • Westborough Boulevard/Galway Place: LOS declines from LOS B to LOS C in the PM peak hour. • Westborough Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard: intersection continues to operate at a LOS F in the AM peak hour, with an increase from 121.8 to 154.5 seconds per vehicle in average delays • Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center driveway: intersection continues to operate at a LOS F in the PM peak hour, with a slight increase (from 64.4 to 76.5 seconds per vehicle) in average delays. Since the addition of the background projects does not result in a decline from an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level of service, there is not a significant impact at any of the project intersections as a result of background conditions. e. Existing Freeway Segment Operation The following freeway segments represent those in San Mateo County that would potentially be impacted by the proposed project: • Interstate 280 • SR-I (North) to SR-1 (South) • SR-1 (South) to San Bruno Avenue f. Westborough Shopping Center Exit Onto Westbound Westborough Boulevard October d, 2UOt Chapter 4.2 Page 6 Nlarbella Housing; Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Currently, the vehicles exiting the Westborough Shopping Center onto westbound Westborough Boulevard have a short merge distance if they want to turn left onto southbound Gellert Boulevard. As a result, these vehicles have to weave across three lanes of traffic in a relatively short distance, creating a traffic hazard. Table 5 Existing A.m. and P.m. Peak Intersection Volumes AM peak hour PM peak hour Ave. Ave. No. Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Gellert Boulevard/King Drive* 17.5 C 25.8 D 2 Gellert Boulevard/Rowntree Wave 12.2 B 16.9 C 3 Gellert Blvd/Pac-N-Save/ Orchard Supply 8.6 A 13.8 B Driveway 4 Gellert Boulevard/McDonald's Entrance 6.6 A 8.6 A 5 Westboroug h Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard 39.2 D 35.7 D 6 Westboroug h Boulevard/Olympic Drive* 121.8 F 14.6 B 7 Westboroug h Boulevard/Galway Place 23.6 C 14.2 B 8 Gellert Blvd/Westborough Shopping Center 18.2 C 64.4 F Drivewav* Note: * Unsignalized intersection Average Delay in seconds per vehicle LOS: Level of Service According to the 1999 San Mateo Final Congestion Management Program, the freeway segment of I-280 between SR-1 (North) to SR-1 (South) currently operates at LOS E, while the freeway segment of I-280 between SR-1 (South) to San Bruno Avenue currently operates at LOS D. 4. Transit Service San Mateo County Transit (SAMTRANS) currently operates ten local bus routes and six express routes in South San Francisco. Bus Route 122 provides service within the vicinity of the project. Route 122 travels along Gellert Boulevard and operates on weekdays on 15-minute headways between 6:00-8:00 a.m. and 4:00- 6:00 p.m. and on 30-minute headways between 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 12:00 midnight. This route operates on weekends on 30-minute headways between 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation October 4, 21101 Chapter 4.2 Page 7 Marbella IIousing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan indicates bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project. The existing system consists of three classifications of bicycle facilities: • Class I facilities (bike path): are paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways used by motor vehicles by space or a physical barrier and are designated for bicycle use. • Class II facilities (bike lane): are lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of bicycles, so designated with special signing and pavement markings. • Class III facilities (bike route): are roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes are designated with signs. The bicycle facilities map, as incorporated into the General Plan, identifies Westborough Boulevard and Galway Drive as major bike routes in the vicinity of the project site. Junipero Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard (to the east of I-280) include bike lanes, respectively. Pedestrian facilities within the vicinity of the site include sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian signals. The existing sidewalks on both sides of the road accommodate pedestrian movements along the adjacent section of Gellert Boulevard. The following intersections include crosswalks and pedestrian signals at all four legs of the intersection: • Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard • Gellert Boulevard/King Drive • Westborough Boulevard/Galway Drive -Galway Place The intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Pac `N Save-Orchard Supply Driveway provides pedestrian signals and crosswalks. Pedestrian movements are restricted on the east and west leg of the intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway and on the south leg of the Gellert Boulevard/WestboroughB0ulevard. No pedestrian crossings are allowed at the intersection of Westborough Boulevard/Olympic Drive. 6. Parking According to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), residential uses, including multi-family projects, must provide 2.0 parking spaces per unit, with at least one parking space covered. In addition, one guest parking space must be provided for every four units. 7. On-Site Circulation October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.2 Page 8 Marbella l~lousin~ Subdivision Dr-ft Environmental Impact Report The site is currently undeveloped and does not contain access driveways or roadways. Section C describes the circulation improvements proposed as part of this project. B. Standards of Significaiace The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to traffic if it would: • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established b_v the City of South San Francisco for designated roads or highways. Cause a signalized or all-way-stop controlled intersection to operate below LOS D or the current LOS, if worse than current LOS. Cause a substantial decrease in the level of accessibility within South San Francisco and/or fail to provide adequate sites and facilities forpedestrianand bicycle movement within areas of new development and between existing neighborhoods and areas of new development. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features or incompatible uses. • Result in inadequate emergency access. • Result in inadequate parking capacity. • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. C. Impact Discussion This section evaluates traffic impacts that could occur as a result of the project. 1. Impacts to Freeway Segments Project-generated traffic would not change levels of service on regional routes of significance in the study area. The proposed project would increase I-280 traffic by 25 vehicles between SR-1 North and SR-1 South, which is equivalent to 0.2 per cent of freeway capacity, during the PM peak hour in the peak direction. The proposed project would increase I-280 traffic by 25 vehicles between SR-1 South and San Bruno Avenue, which is equivalent to 0.2 per cent of freeway capacity, during the PM peak hour in the peak direction. Within the study vicinity, I-280 would continue to function at an acceptable LOS E between SR-1 North and SR-1 South with the addition of the project-generated traffic during the PM peak hour. Interstate-280 between SR-1 South and San Bruno Avenue would also continue to function at an acceptable LOS D with the addition of project-generated traffic during the PM peak hour. October 4, 2uot Chapter -1? Page 9 Marbella Housing Subdivision 2. Project Trip Generation Draft Environmental Impact Report This section evaluates background traffic conditions plus project-generated traffic estimated for the proposed project. The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using the following three-step approach: 1. Trip Generation. Trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997. Trip Generation numbers are provided in Appendix B. Based on 280 multi-family dwelling units, the proposed project would generate the following numbers of trips: • AM peak hour- 21 inbound trips 103 outbound trips • PM peak hour- 102 inbound trips 52 outbound trips 2. Trip Distribution. The directions of approach and departure for project trips were estimated based on existing travel patterns and locations of complimentary land uses. Illustrations of trip distributions for the AM and PM peak hours are located in Appendix B. 3. Trip Assignme~it. The direction of approach and departure for projects trips were estimated based on existing roadway networks and the locations of the proposed access points, travel patterns and locations of complimentary land uses. Illustrations of projected trip assignments are included in Appendix B. Table 6 Intersection Capacity Analysis Background Scenario AM peak hour PM peak hour Ave. Delay Ave. Delay No. Intersection LOS LOS 1 Gellert Boulevard/ 19.2 C 27.6 D Kin Drive* 2 Gellert Boulevard/ 12.3 B 17.2 C Rowntree Wa 3 Gellert Blvd/Pac-N-Save/ 8.7 A 14 B Orchard Su I Driveway 4 Gellert Boulevard/ 6.4 A 8.5 A McDonald's Entrance 5 Westborough Boulevard/ 40.4 D 36.4 D Gellert Boulevard October 4, 2uul Chapter 4.2 Page 10 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report No. Intersection Ave. Delay LOS Ave. Delay LOS 6 Westborough Boulevard/ 154.5 F 15.1 C Olympic Drive* 7 Westborough Boulevard/ 23.9 C 14.1 B Galway Place 8 Gellert Blvd/Westborough 18.6 C 76.5 F Shopping Ctr Driveway Note: * Unsignalized intersection Average Delay in seconds per vehicle LOS: Level of Service The following impacts to intersections would occur as a result of the proposed project-generated traffic: • Westborough Boulevard/Galway Place: LOS declines from LOS B to LOS C in the PM peak hour. • Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard: intersection would continue to operate at LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hour with slight increases in average delays in both peak periods. • Westborough Boulevard/Olympic Drive: intersection would continue to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour with an increase in average delays from 121.8 to 154.4 seconds. • Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center: intersection would continue to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour with an increase in delays from 64.4 to 76.5 seconds. 3. Impacts to Transit No impacts to traffic would occur as a result of the proposed project. In addition, the applicant has proposed a shuttle system as a part of the residential development which would have a beneficial impact to transit. 4. Impacts to Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation The proposed project would not have an impact with respect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, mitigation measure TRAFFIC-5, which prohibits parking along Gellert Boulevard would actually improve bicycle and pedestrian safety by decreasing obstacles to bicycle and pedestrian movement and visibility. 5. Impacts to Parking The City of South San Francisco zoning ordinance requires two parking spaces be provided per unit, one of which is to be covered. In addition, one guest parking spot must be provided for each four units. The site October 4, 21101 Chapter 4? Page I 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Em~ironmental Impact Report design includes a total of 630 stalls, with 474 stalls in a garage and 156 open air parking spaces. This number is equal to the required amount of parking. 6. Impacts to On-Site Circulation The proposed project would have two public roadway connections to Gellert Boulevard. The first connection would constitute the fourth (westerly) leg of the signalized Pac-N-Save intersection. The second connection would be aright-turn-in and right-turn-out intersection located between Rowntree Way and the Pac-N-Save driveway, approximately 260 feet south of Rowntree Way. In addition, an emergency vehicle access would also be provided at the south end of the development connecting to the McDonald's and the Aegis Assisted Living facility driveway. The on-site circulation would be provided by three roadways; Marbella Drive, San Remo Court and Portofino Place. All streets within the Marbella planned unit development would be private. The project access connection to the signalized Gellert Boulevard/Pac 'N Save driveway intersection is proposed to be named Marbella Drive and will be 40 feet wide, curb to curb. This would allow striping of two lanes on the eastbound approach to Gellert Boulevard and at least at 16-foot-wide inbound lane. The single east-west internal street (named Portofino Place north of Marbella Drive and San Remo Court south of Marbella Drive) would be 25 feet wide curb to curb, which would not allow any width for on- street parallel parking. Two 90-degree guest parking bays would be located along San Remo Court (providing a total of 10 spaces) and a single 90-degree parking bay would be provided at the north end of the site along Portofino Place (providing four spaces) while a larger 90-degree parking bay will be provided on the west side of the Marbella Drive/Portofino Place/San Remo Court intersection (providing eight spaces). Two garage and two apron spaces would be provided for each unit. Aprons for uphill lots would be 18 feet long while aprons for downhill lots will be 20 feet long. Grades on all internal streets would be less than 3%, which would be well under the City's maximum 129c grade limit. The project site plan design reflects preliminary review by both the City Public Works and Fire departments. The overall project internal design appears acceptable. • Marbella Drive would constitute the westerly leg of the signalized intersection of Gellert Boulevard and the Pac N Save driveway. Marbella Drive would provide the primary access to the proposed project site and end in a `T' intersection with San Remo Court, which extends south, and Portofino Place, which extends north. • San Remo Court would run north-south, and provide access to the four southern buildings and parking garages. • Portofino Place would run north-south, and provide access to the two northern buildings and parking garages. October a, 3001 Chapter 4.2 Page 12 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report The street grades on these three streets would be less than 3%, which is well under the City's maximum limit of 12%. The proposed on-site circulation plan has been preliminarily reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department and the South San Francisco Fire Department. Since the on-site circulation plan meets the requirements of the City of South San Francisco, no impact would result from the proposed project. 7. Other Impacts The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. Although the site is located in close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport, it does not lie directly within the flight path of departures from or arrivals to SFIA. Hence there would not be impacts to air traffic patterns. The proposed project would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. A sight line analysis was conducted, which shows that the location of the northern driveway off Gellert Boulevard would not increase vehicle or pedestrian hazards. However, if parking is permitted along Gellert Boulevard, an impact to the sightline~ distance could result. The site line analysis is included in Appendix C. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Both the police department and the fire department have reported that the proposed circulation plan for the site would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and that response times to the site would be well within the acceptable range. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation since these policies are designed for employment centers and the project is a residential development. D. Impacts and Mitigation Measures As noted in Section C, the traffic generated by the proposed project would have impacts at three of the eight study intersections. The impacts and corresponding recommended mitigation measures are described below: Impact TRAFFIC-1: The intersection of Westborough Boulevard/Olympic Drive operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour, under the existing and background conditions. The addition of project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service since it is already at LOS F. However, it would result in a substantial increase in the average delay per vehicle. Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-l: A third eastbound though-lane should be added to the approach to the intersection. This would only require striping the roadway and adding Botts dots for vehicle October 4, zoul Chapter 4.2 Page 13 Nlarbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report chanellization. No new right-of-way would be needed to implement this mitigation measure. With this mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. Impact TRAFFIC-2: The intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the existing background conditions, and would remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The addition of project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service, since it is already at LOS F. However, it would result in an increase in the average delay per vehicle, which constitutes a significant impact. Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-2: Signalization at Gellert Boulevard/Westborough ShoppingCenter driveway is not recommended due to its proximity to the Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard/McDonald's Driveway intersections. A third signal would have a negative impact for traffic flows along Gellert Boulevard. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be a significant cold unai~oidable impact. Impact TRAFFIC-3: Cumulative traffic would result in a significant impact at the intersection of Gellert Boulevard/King Drive. The PM peak hour intersection delay would increase by more than four seconds, and LOS E operations are expected in the PM peak hour. This constitutes a significant impact. Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-3: A traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Gellert Boulevard and King Drive. Implementation of this traffic measure would require the City of South San Francisco to coordinate with the City of Daly City regarding construction and operation of the traffic signal. If this does not occur, on of two other possible mitigation measures should be implemented: 1. Remove on-street parking on the northbound approach to the intersection and restripe the north bound approach to add a second northbound left-turn lane within the existing right-of- way. The intersection would remain afour-way STOP controlled intersection. The northbound leg of the intersection is in the City of South San Francisco; or 2. Remove on-street parking on the westbound approach to the intersection to and re-stripe the westbound approach to have a separate through-lane and a separate right-turn lane within the exiting right-of-way. The intersection would remain afour-way STOP controlled intersection. The westbound leg of the intersection is in the City of Daly City, and would require approval from the City of Daly City prior to implementation. With the addition of a traffic signal or either of the roadway stripping improvements, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact TRAFFIC-4: Site distances for motorists are currently compromised due to the topography along Gellert Boulevard, particularly for motorists turning from the north project site access. Parked cars along October 4, 2UO1 Chapter 42 Page 14 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Gellert Boulevard exacerbate site distance inadequacies. Therefore, the following mitigation measure should be incorporated: Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-4: Parking should be prohibited adjacent to the project site along Gellert Boulevard between the project's north access and the project's north boundary. Impact TRAFFIC-5: Vehicles exiting the Westborough Shopping Center onto westbound Westborough Boulevard currently have a short merge distance if they want to turn left onto southbound Gellert Boulevard As a result, these vehicles have to weave across three lanes of traffic in a relatively short distance, creating a safety hazard. The project may exacerbate this. Therefore, the following mitigation measure should be incorporated: Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-5: The westbound left-turn pocket on Westborough Boulevard at Gellert Boulevard should be lengthened so that it extends back to a point opposite the Westborough Shopping Center driveway. This mitigation measure would require the removal of a portion of the existing median island, but would not require any additional right-of-way. Project proponent should pay its fair share for this extension. With this mitigation measure, this potential impact would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.2 Page 15 Marbella HousinK Subdivision 4.3 Visual Resources Draft F,nvironmental Impact Report This section includes a description of the existing visual setting of the Marbella Housing Subdivision proposed project site and an analysis of the effects the proposed project would have on views and aesthetics in the project vicinity. a. Existing Setting i. Regulatory Setting The South San Francisco General Plan promulgates policies which relate to certain viewsheds in the city. In addition, in 1991 the City of South San Francisco commissioned the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan, an urban design study for the area including the proposed project site, which discusses the visual impacts of building on the site. Both of these policy documents are discussed below. (I) South San Francisco General Plan The Land Use Element of the South San Francisco General Plan outlines height limits and density and intensity standards for specific areas of the city. The proposed project is located in an area with an airport-related height limitation of 450 feet pursuant to the Airport Land Use Plan. The City's General Plan conforms, in all respects, to the Airport Land Use Plan. The maximum permitted height in the R-3L High Density Residential zone is fifty (50) feet. The approval of the Planned Unit Development Permit would all the height of the project to increase to a maximum of seventy (70) feet. The General Plan also contains a viewshed study, which outlines the following areas as being visually prominent from most areas of the city: • the south face of Sign Hill • the base of San Bruno Mountain the east face of Point San Bruno Knoll The viewshed study also identifies three viewpoints from which much of the city is visible. These viewpoints are: • the parking lot of the retail shopping center east of Gellert Boulevard • the intersection of Grand Avenue and Walnut Avenue • San Bruno Point A portion of the northern end of the proposed project site is also visible from two of the viewpoints selected in the viewshed study. Although the General Plan identifies highly-visible areas, it does not include specific policies regarding visual impacts of development in these areas. (2) Westborough/Gellert Design Plan October., 2001 Chapter 4.3, Pave 1 Nlarbella Housing; Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report The Westborough/Gellert Design Plan covers the area surrounding the project site, and is bounded by: ~ the City Limits to the north ~ Interstate 280 to the east ~ Westborough Boulevard to the south ~ the PG&E easement to the west The Plan was written in 1991 using input from the City Council, the Planning Commission, the residents of the area, and the owner of the project site, at that time. The Plan focused on the project site as the "greatest opportunity to effect change in the Study Area in the short-term." The Design Plan contains several goals and recommendations regarding the visual quality of any proposed projects on the project site. The policies and guidelines contained in the plan are not requirements but are intended to "facilitate communication" between applicants and the City and to encourage specific types of development in the area. Although conformity to the plan is not required, the proposed project has been evaluated with respect to the design guidelines contain therein. The following goals of the Design Plan are relevant to visual impacts in the Study Area: ~ Create a sense of visual individuality for each commercial tenant or residential type, withiiz arz overall unity. ~ Create a recognizable identity amid sense of place for the area. ~ E'ncourage unique and imagiizative arc/iitectural and site design. ~ Promote the development of a coherent landscape and ope~z space system as an integral part of the area's design. The Design Plan also includes the following Design Concepts, which are intended to provide a guide for development that will fit aesthetically within the area: ~ Creating a sense of visual amity that fits with tlTe existing context. ~ Utilizing three-dimensional elements to define the street edge and scale the street space. ~ Decreasing the visual prominence of parking lots. ~ Creating legible, recognizable entry points into the Study Area. ~ Defining appropriate building colors, materials and forms. In order to implement the above goals and concepts, the Design Plan lists specific recommendations and guidelines which should be incorporated into any proposed development in the study area. These guidelines are not intended as requirements which must be met. Instead, they are suggestions intended to promote functional, attractive designs and to provide a basis by which the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Council can evaluate proposed projects. The recommendations and guidelines are divided into several categories. The categories relevant to the visual resources analysis of a proposed residential development are: October d, 2UOl Chapter 4.3, Page 2 Marbella Housing Subdivision Linkages . Parking Open Space Architecture . Landscaping Site Features Streetscape Draft Environmental Impact Report The relevant recommendations and guidelines pertaining to each of the categories are outlined below. Linkages: ~ Announce entrcnlces to the Sturly Area with gateway structures, signage, or special planting. • Preserve the views of the East Ba~• Hills and Bay seen from the existing homes at the top of the slope and take advantage of vier opportunities in the design of the new residences. ~ Improve the appearance of the visually-imposing scar created by the existing cut slope by introducing elements that step up the slope, rather than constructing a massive wall to level the topography. Parking: ~ Parki~ig facilities should be treated architecturally and integrated into the building. The treaunent of the exterior of any parking structure should be aesthetically pleasing, designed to reduce the apparent bulk and potential dominance of the structure. It should also be compatible with the overall project design. ~ Exterior materials of parking structures should be harmonious with surrounding buildings. ~ Design parking structures to be compatible with the pedestrian environment. Clad street frontages of the garage in mixed uses such as retail or residential. Reduce the scale of "cave- like" entrances with architectural detailing. ~ Carefully consider placement of parking facilities in residential areas to avoid visual dominance of the streetscape character. ~ Carefully locate new surface parking lots towards the rear of the site, away from the road. ~ Screen visual impact of surface parking lots with "village" materials, such as walls, seating, trellises, or most preferably, building architecture. Create a continuous urban edge. ~ Clearly identify entries into parking structures by common architectural features, landscape treatment, signing and lighting. Open Space: ~ Pedestrian use areas should contain a high degree of visual interest using texture and color. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.3, Page 3 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Elements that can be used to achieve this effect without creati~tg a "mall " environme~tt include special paving, florverplunting i~l pots, and seating areas. ~ Hillside open space should be planted kith a pleasing arrangement of trees, shrubs, and g rotutd co ve r. Architecture: ~ Greater Uuilding heigluand mcrssingalong the Celle rt frontage closest to Westborough Boulevard should be cncotrraged to reinforce iteiglthorhood uwuj~eness of the urea caul its uses. ~ An architectural presence at kev entrv points can be emphasi<.ed with towers or other,focal architectural elements. ~ New buildings proposed for the hillside urea must be sensitively integrated into the e.risting context. The elevation of the roof cave should not be higher thcut the finish grade of the e.ristiiig residences above. ~ Buildings that hcrg the slope crud step up the hill are pr~cferred over buildings on large flat pads. ~ Building roofs should generally be sloping, at a pitch sufficient to be visible from the opposite curb. ~ Residential architecture should incorporate a variety of building types, sites and heights, and color accents for visual interest, with an overall continuity of design. Building massing should be varied so that a monotonous rhythm is avoided. /n multiple family nreas, provide each group of milts with its own identity and entry space to assist in wcry finding within a development. ~ Building orientation should be considered with respect to potential impacts of each building on its neighbors. For example, consider views, views into windows, a~~td visibility of rooftop mechanical equipment. ~ The building massing on the vacant parcel will be an important component of the visual character of the area. /n order to avoid creating a relatively low rise, long, linear "train" of buildings, create breaks or gaps in the buildings, with periodic vertical pcuzcterations. ~ A special architectural treatment should occur on the ends of attached hoersing units, to visually finish the structure. ~ Large building facades should be divided into smaller-width elements to create the intimate pedestrian scale associated with a "village. " ~ Facades should be highly detailed and subdivided with bay windows, balconies, terraces, planters, awnings, belt courses, and cornices. ~ Simple, timeless architectural design is encouraged. Building materials shocrld reflect an integrity of design, where materials and detailing correspond to the building style. ~ Walls facing pedestrian ~ti•uys ar-e encouraged to have elente~lts of visual interest, such as fenestration, displays, signing, or landscaping. Blank walls in such situations are discouraged. ~ Class doors and windows should be of clear glass, rather than heavily tinted or reflective glass. Glass curtain walls should be avoided. October 4, ?001 Chapter ~. ~, Page ~1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report ~ Primary building colors should be light neutral tones, such as beige, blue-gray, or cream to act as a background for accent trim, ati~•nings and signing. A coordinated color scheme which responds to the style of the structure should be developed for each building. The colors of signi~ig, awnings, pla~lters, accent materials, and primary facade colors should all be considered. The ~zurmber of colors should be limited; rainbow-type color schemes are discouraged. ~ Towers, roof form changes, a~rnings or other architecnrral elements should be used to clearly define building entries. ~ Special, smaller-scale treatment of materials, tivindows, and doors sl2ould be considered at huilding entrances to improve their human scale and interest. ~ The screenings necessary to hide the mechanical equipment from public ureas should be part of the building rather than something added on at the end. Trash collection and storage areas should be grouped cold screened with ~rnll materials that ore similar to the buildings, preferably in areas that are away from direct street view. Landscaping: ~ At a minimum, each site should be landscaped as set forth in the City Zoning standards. Exceeding the r~zi~uimunn standards is encouraged. ~ Hillside planting should be carefully chosen to avoid blocking views. ~ Speciallundscaping should be utili_.ed inhigh-visibilityar-eas, foriieighborhoodilentity. Special landscaping might include special entry trees, distinct street trees, or colorful low plantings. ~ Playa areas, especially those intended to function as pedestrian destinations, should contain landscaping in the form of bosques and clusters of pedestrian-scaled trees iu1 small planting cut- outs or tree grates. Colorfi~~l shrubs should be planted in pots and small cut-outs. Vines should climb up buildings and twine around trellises. Trailing plants should spill out of second-level planters. Site Features: • Each sign should be designed to complement the architectural and landscape styles of the site with respect to visual elements such as co~lstruction materials, color, or other design details. Each sigh should take into consideration overall visual compatibility with the Westborough/Gellert area. ~ Site liglting should serve functional, safety and aesthetic purposes. The style of light fixtures and their location should complement the architectural and landscape design character. ~ Night lighting of the buildings should be done in a selective fashion and should be indirect in character (no light source visible). Among the acceptable means of architectural lighting are keynoting special features such as towers and decorative cornices, emphasising repetitive elements such as columns, using light to articulate architectural composition, and using interior light sources as part ~f t he total design. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.3, Pale 5 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report ~ Lights should not bliizk, flash, or change i~7tensity. Lighting should not intrerde on adjacent property or glare into drivers' eyes. A~tv light source over IOfeet high should incorporate a cut- off shield to prevent light spill. ~ The design of retaining walls on the vacant parcel ticill bean important factor- iii the overall i~isual appearance of the area. A series of foie retaining tivalls is preferable to one large wall. Retaining walls should be designed to appear to be a part of str~~ctuj~es to decrease their visibilih• and massiveness. Trailing and creeping plants should be a part of the planting treatment for-retaining walls. Streetscape: ~ Crc~ute a strong visual edge Lit' visuall~~ defining the edge of the street tltrocrgli the design and placement of street trees, street lig/ns, bollards, a change in grade and paving, or other streetscape elements. ii. Existing Visual Character of the Project Site The project site is currently a vacant parcel of approximately 14.9 acres. The entire site is on a steep, highly-engineered cut slope which rises approximately 125 feet in elevation from Gellert Boulevard to the western edge of the site. Due to the site topography and the lack of mature trees in the immediate area, the hillside is visually prominent. Site vegetation consists of grassy or n~deral vegetation and a few shrubs and trees. In addition, there is a thick stand of vegetation on the south side of the site, adjacent to the McDonald's parking lot. There is a row of power lines at the top of the slope. iii. Visual Character of the Surrounding Area The overall topography of the region rises from sea level at the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay in the east to the peaks of the hills along the Pacific Coast in the west. These hills peak at approximately 700 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) before descending to the ocean. The project site lies on the eastern slope of these hills and ranges in elevation from approximately 300 feet to 425 feet above MSL. The site slopes up steeply from east to west and slightly from south to north. The site is surrounded by the following: ~ North of the Project Site. The South San Francisco/Daly City Limit passes approximately 500 feet north of the project site. The area to the north is within Daly City and consists of aloes-density, suburban residential neighborhood with housing stock of one and two stories dating from the 1970s. Gellert Boulevard is a four-lane road divided by a grassy median with few trees and little landscaping. ~ South of the Project Site. Immediately south of the project site, north of Westborough Boulevard, is a small professional office building, a McDonald's fast food restaurant, and a gas station located at the corner of Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard. To the south of Westborough Boulevard is a hilly residential area with October -t, 2001 Chapter 4.3, Page 6 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report a mix ofone- and two- story homes which are approximately 30 years old. South of the intersection with Westborough Boulevard, Gellert Boulevard curves steeply uphill to the southeast and is lined with higher- density residences such as condominiums and townhouses. Gellert Boulevard narrows to two lanes, divided by a grassy median. The majority of housing in this area consists of single-family homes which are approximately 20 to 25 years old. Most of the roads in these neighborhoods curve gently and private yards contain mature landscaping. • East of the Project Site. Interstate 280 runs north-south approximately a quarter of a mile east of the project site. There are north and south on- and off-ramps for Interstate 280 at Westborough Boulevard. The area between Gellert Boulevard and Interstate 280 is filled with several commercial and retail areas, including a gas station, the Westborough Square Shopping Center, Pak N Save, Orchard Supply Hardware, and the Gellert Square Shopping Center. This commercial stock is low-rise and boxy in appearance, set back from both Westborough and Gellert Boulevards and surrounded by large, unlandscaped parking lots. ~ West of the Project Site. The project site slopes steeply from Gellert Boulevard in at its eastern edge to the top of the peak at the western edge of the site. Immediately adjacent, at the top of the slope, is a 50-foot wide PG&E easement containing a row of tall metal utility towers and power lines. On the western side of the easement is alow- density residential area of one- and two-story homes which are around 30 years old. The streets closest to the project site are short, straight spurs off of Galway Drive and Radburn Drive, which curve slightly. This neighborhood is not visible from the site due to its location at the top of the slope. iv. Views of the Project Site Due to the site topography and the lack of mature trees in the immediate area, the hillside on which the proposed project would be located is visually prominent from several areas. This section discusses views of the site from its immediate surroundings. Please refer to Figure 23, which shows view corridors surrounding the proposed project site. ~ North. Due to the hilly terrain of the area, the project site is not visible from the north from any significant distance. Most local traffic from the north would approach the site by traveling south on Gellert Boulevard. Due to the steep incline of Gellert Boulevard north of the site and the curvature of the street, the project site is not visible from Gellert Boulevard except at the northern edge of the site, as shown by View Corridor 1. At the northern edge of the site the majority of the site is visible. October d, 2001 Chapter -~.3, Page 7 -- ~ W Z H N ~ 00 W - ~ N ~~ ~ W ~~ _ ~ H- ~I. U CJ ~ ~ ~ i LL N ~ d $~ 4' o Ca ~ ~ ~ `~f yam' p O ~ ~ ONS 4 S Q h F '~ ~~M'y ~~ ~ ~ f>d ~~~1d ~' c~ y '(J~~ rr '~ ~ob'kioo ~y O °O Q ~ ~ ~ w 3q f ~~°f ~ o '~ ~' .~~~ `° y~~1 '~ ~- c'~' ~ ~ / ~~do 000 o~r$~ W O F s,,dJ/ °o ~~, do ~~ ~P 7b y~,ta¢ ~ ~,~ y ~j O~ 4$ ~ O w > O F- . G ' p0 O d ~. 7 ~ ?1 ~ Q >iy 3 O ' ~iJ SS~~ 0 ~ ~ ~o- d. Cd pgAS SS . `~ (}, J ~ -` ~ ~ a Q ps ~% 6iP ~av ~°' ~'~a?' ttti`V y v y ~~~ ~ _ -~ > _'1`~ Q 0. /~ O d ~'' ti0 ~ ENE i '.. .. Y , :. ~ u+ Z l l J E O f~C ~ dQ ~0 ~ Q0~ ~ Q Q N a qp ~~~d ARP so 1Rp~~ s. N F j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~b QaaP~ ``d 6yc ~ ~'~ Yjb >' u ~ (~ ~p 0~ ~ ~Z~ Oar d~ d `:` `' y a O Q ~, d s~ ~s 3V Q '~lal~gib~d _ V ~~'~"3yp ~y`yf'~OE. `y c` •~~.pQ b ~ ~`..A~ "CIR. S'~ 4. 1`'`~~ 6~P v~~ ~~c ~' .i ~ pCti ~ O ,,a ~ 'l! w :L ~~ r'~3d3s 4~AY G~2 J d `ems o~~~ ~s 4ryD Q ~ ~ ,a. Y ~ ~~ ~~yV1EW ~ ~ 4 L ~~~ ~~~ Q' pdd~.. ~bt? - - o _ ~\~1P' Jy~ .~ ~' Gam" 7 J+ ~F~ d' ~~ _ _~_ ~ ~''io ~H9Va8 a' oQ p~~~~s bS3W bl~dr L ~~~ V~ ~ N~ ~ay'~~ y~ ~ P ~ RB~¢ ~.~' ~ 6,1,~x OQ`O d6~ ~ b ~~ E ~o yo '~r,~44. W EX y~~ ,~~ ~, cs f ~ "`~ DONEGAL, s~o o~ o 0 dye tl PPERRRy q'~~ ay ao0 iQ °H~,r ~ ~ ~~ ~o y~~8Ndn1 ~ , " . ~ ado O~ D ~~ .~.. ~ ~ ~: ~ as old ~ A, 0 ~' ,~~_ _ _ ~J~` ._d o '7d Nltt3 oI.YM ~id~lo ~~~ m `b Qti~~ ~~~ ~ ~, 1,~`~ ~ DA. ~ n ~fbw,, - 8 ~ NllB~a ~ s ~ ~~~~~ti _.~ A31NY ~ !~ ~ `V RT ~/ a ~ )d AtIM7yJ O ~r ~ ~ ' \~J~ ~3iWOaa' J y~ ~ a ~. . .= ~ ~ ^ ~ ego y d L ~ ~ L L ~ d Q Z7 'p ~ ~ O i +~' ~ ~ n: a in •L ,L O •O ~ L' V ~ V U 3 3 3 a~ ~ ~, ~, z .'y+~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ Y Rr ~.I:. l 1 f - r r n 1 I ,~ ~ ~4 ~ ~ ~- is ~ _ I Ct' I Jn,,. r~,' -1 `i ~ mob` i ~~~ ~ ~•~ ohs+ ' v ~ ,.: b ~~ ~' 2 ~ ~}1p } + u 1 ~ a ~' ~ ¢ ~ +~ •a ~ ~ , s4 °e, ~ ~ „ov ,~~° µ o~ Y ('L ~' ;i l ~ V" p .' a / C W N~/ S ENE c gyp. .. ' i 4 ~ ~ ~O 'h0 ,~ e l f. ~ ~ :_ o* d:93 m,x E„~ A' ~/ y ~r :a` ~ :y/e. xFtE~ U . b V f ~~ L :t(4j4° ooxcc~ ~ - A ` '•T x i~PP4xxE k • ~b~wm~ ... ; n + O ? 1N ~ ~ ; c __ n JIdM10ry / r V z < < ~ u dpi/`a ,~a a v~ • MM a ~ i~1 fame ~ A'_ S 0 ~. ~ ~ d~~ - ~ a N Q W Z ~_ 0 V 0 r Z a 3 z O~ ~_ tL ~ U m CL N Z Q N ~ 0 2 ~ Qo ~~ ..! W m w a° E lL Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report • South. From the south, the project site is clearly visible from several points in the neighboring residential areas as well as from a short stretch of Interstate 280. The site is visible from several viewpoints on Olympic Drive and Gellert Boulevard, both of which climb uphill from their intersection with Westborough Boulevard. As shown in Figure 23, View Corridor 2, when traveling north (downhill) on Olympic Drive, the top of slope of the site comes into view near the intersection of Shannon Drive. Mature trees in the neighborhood then block this view, then the bottom of the slope and the northern end of the site come into view near Dublin Drive. From Dublin Drive to Westborough Boulevard, the entire site is visible. South of Westborough Boulevard, Gellert Boulevard climbs upward towards the peak of a hill. As shown in Figure 23, View Corridor 3, traveling northwest (downhill) on Gellert Boulevard, the southern half of the site first comes into view near the upper intersection of Gellert Boulevard and Derry Way. Proceeding northwest, the site is visible through the transparent wrought-iron fence of the townhouse development along the right-hand side of the street. The view of the site is then blocked by rooflines as Gellert Boulevard continues to descend. As Gellert Boulevard approaches Westborough Boulevard the street curves to the right and the entire site comes into view at the intersection of Gellert Boulevard and Barrington. From I-280 south of the site, the northern half of the site comes into the view of northbound traffic approximately a quarter of a mile south of the Westborough Boulevard on-ramp, as shown in Figure 23, View Corridor 4. For approximately 1000 feet, the upper half of the slope is visible above the rooflines of the Westborough Square shopping center and the mature trees in the area. • East. The California Golf Club is directly east of the site, across I-280. From the section of the interstate immediately east of the site as well as from the golf course, the view of the site is blocked by the upward slope of the terrain and by mature trees in the area. From the residential areas east of Junipero Serro Boulevard, the project site is blocked by trees and by I-280, as shown in Figure 23, View Corridor 5. Local traffic would approach the site from the east via Westborough Boulevard. East of the project site, Westborough Boulevard passes north of [he California Golf Club and underneath the I-280 overpass before climbing a slight incline to the intersection with Gellert Boulevard. From the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Orange Avenue, the site is concealed by houses and foliage. As Westborough Boulevard approaches the on-and off-ramps of 280 North, the site is blocked by the on-ramp and embankment of the interstate. Passing beneath I-280, the site remains hidden by the off-ramp and embankment of I-280 southbound and does not come into view until Westborough Boulevard reaches the entrance to the Westborough Square Shopping Center on the right. At this point the majority of the site is visible. • West. Since the site sits on the eastern side of the range of hills stretching along the Pacific Coast, the visibility of the site from the west is very limited. From the residential area immediately to the west, the site is visible only from a few homes adjoining the site at the top of the slope. See Figure 23, View Corridor 6. For traffic traveling west on Westborough Boulevard, views of the site are blocked by the curvature and slope of the street, as well as by foliage of trees along the left side of the street and in the median. Traveling east down Westborough Boulevard, the southern end of the site does not come into view until the intersection with Olympic Drive directly south of the site, as shown in Figure 23, View Corridor 7. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.3, Page 10 Marbella Housing Subdivision v. Views from the Project Site Draft Environmental Impact Report Due to its location on a prominent, sparsely-vegetated hillside, the project site features panoramic views to the north, east, and southeast. These views encompass much of Colma, South San Francisco, and San Bruno. In the foreground, the site overlooks Gellert Boulevard, across the parking lots and the rooftops of the large commercial buildings east of the site, and the California Golf Club golf course. In the middle distance are the low hills and flatland residential areas of South San Francisco. Most of this area features low-density residential neighborhoods with straight streets and closely-spaced houses. San Bruno Mountain is clearly visible to the northwest, as is the San Francisco International Airport to the southwest. The most distant landscape features visible are the San Francisco Bay and the East Bay Hills in the east. Southeast of the site is a rounded hill which is slightly taller than the peak of the project site. This hill is covered with closely-spaced homes and townhouses which step up the hill. The homes are arranged along roughly concentric streets. To the west, the view from the site is limited to the power lines and the eastern sides of the houses closest to the top of the slope. From the bottom of the project site visibility is limited to the immediately surrounding areas. This view is dominated by the busy intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard and the surrounding commercial uses. Both streets are four-lane divided streets. There are gas stations at both the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection. The large parking lots, rooflines and signs of the "big box" retail uses and the Westborough Square Shopping Center are clearly visible from the sidewalk to the east of the site. On the southern side of Westborough Boulevard, residential areas slope up from the intersection, screened by mature trees. October 4, ?ool Chapter 4.3, Page 1 1 ~.:. <; ~1: a ~.LL,~a: (~ '~.~ ~: s ~a ~ ~ a3 ~r ~'. ~, ~; - :.~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ N~.`YP ~ t '~`~ ~, ~' -~ r r ° '~~ :i ~~y.F ~ N N Z 0 ~_ ~ ~ 0 u t7 Z H W F Z O a 3 z `; 00 y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U to Q 7 a H E J zQ ~~ ~z OE =Z QO J ~ J > W Z m w Q ~ N u 0 LL ~9 "i • fi µ `' ~ ~ ~~ ,f, ,-, ~: - ~4 .. .a ~t i,= ,;b __ a:. ~ §Y ;;,, ~. :. J co ~ N Z W p (~ ~ ~ 0 Z O `U V LZ r W N f.. Z O a 3 W z~ O ~O >_~ C~ my Q ~a ~~ J Z Q ~ ~ Z W 0 IZ Q O J ~ J ~ W Z t0 w Q ~ E ~ U O .~ ~,~ a 9~ ~ ~ ~~; `' ,. ~' ~ `' T~~~ _. w - ~'cw . ~ ~4: ~' '+ ~ ~~ ~"~ { - (.» -; ~ `. ~ .. .. -. ~~, ,~ - a~, s n , x b ~, ~ ~ ~~ It ~:. .. ~~ ' ~~, °,~ ~ ~ w ~, ,, ~~ , . .' "~''~ $: ^~ ~ ~.~ €~,~_. ~ N w lL O ~"' 0 Z V LZ r W M Z a 3 Z ~' o~ _o IA a ~ ~ ~ ~ m V ~ a N ~ J Z Q H~ ccz 0 L Z J O J ~ W Z m W a° E~ U O ~ N N Z W ~ ~_ Z IU V LZ r X W F- Z O a W Z~ O~ _O y d ~ ~ D ~ ~ V Q ~ a (fA ~ v J 2Q W 0 IZ Q Q J ~ J J w Z m w Q ~ E ~ V 0 LL ~~. ~ ~~ ~' r I v ~ ik i ~ ,i .. u, + ~ „ ~ ~, t4 F ~t~~~;, ~; w ~ ~ °,` ;r 5 ~ '"x' jy ~._ w ~ ~ . 'W ~ 3 _~~ 14k ~ ~tiY ~ f ~, M1~ r 7; ~ a~f5 ar ,sr ,S' ~ ~' ~ ~.., ~s ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~z ~,~~ .L JA. '~', ~ ~~ ` .. ,~ 4--. g ~..' +~' y C. ~~ .~ ,~~ } ~, ~ V¢ a - ~ ~. ~. r ~ ~ £ ~*• ~ ~ .s t,:.' .r,. S d: t= . 9} "a 9, , ~, ~~. '~~~+ ~ 01 N N Z Z ~ O~ ~ N ~ W ~ ~ >~ U - c~ li. D m Q Z ~ ~- O N ~ V ~J = Q ,n V {~ Z ~Z W F' x z J K x J > W w Z m w ~ ~ ~ to Q w N H ~ Z V _ O O a 3 O f0 W H Z a `W u W O a 0 W O a O a Z~ O~ _O Yl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V mQ ~ a H Z J Z Q V1 ~ Z o~ 2 Z QO J ~ J > w Z fa w C ~ Q w N U 0 LL .a:~:.. ;;:~ =n ~~.. ~~a _ fV Z H f~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Z '~ w ~ ~ ~ O o~ 4. ~ mQ ~a W ~ ~ > zQ ~ H~ ~z V o~ W xz O a~ ~ J - d J ~ W Z 0 m w W Q ~ f 0 a O a .~ 3 ca ~ ~ s= ~ ~ a ~ ~ - . ~, ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1- U ~ ~ ~ ~ m ' ~ ~ ~ Z Q ~ t6 .o L o . °o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ cii ~ _= o~i S + ~' ~ i ~ ~ J N V \\ X ~ lD ; ..p ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ,N ~ ~R {~ Q 3 O ~ U S .~ ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ (Q V ~ ~' ~ ..1 Z ~ ~ ; H ~ ~ ~ s Z > W L1L ~ _ ~ .. m Y W i (Q ~ ~ W ^' M W flL ~ ~ ~ LK ~~ 01 W ~ ~ 4~i v ~ W ~ ~ ~+ ~' ~ cn ~ .~ N ca L N ~ ~ flC O o°~i 3 ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ v OC O chi ~ ~ ~ .~ v ci) ° ~C L OC +~ c~ ~ ~ ~ a L ~ ~ L1C ~ ¢ ~ ~ •~ ? v Q* v z Q p ~ ~ Z ~ _ ~~~ ~~. U ~, 1.1..1 ~~ J V _Z _Z ^1~ ~.L J U Marbella -Planned Unit Development Retaining Wall Section ~_ :- LLi Q N Ste. ~. nA~ 10"01 ROSS ASSOCIATES SCALE ~°-1Q~_Qn LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. ~V~`b~ 1657 N. CelHomla 81vd., Suke 200, Walnut Cnaek, CA 94596 Of 2 (926) 945.1112 fax: (926) 945-0409 a-ma4: RALA~rweiandarch.com Marbella Housing Subdivision b. Standards of Significance Draft Environmental Impact Report For the purposes of this Draft EIR, visual impacts are considered potentially significant if they have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic impact. This determination is based on a number of criteria, including observer position, views, view corridors, existing and proposed screening, backdrop and the characteristics of the proposed development. The project would have a significant impact with respect to visual resources if it would: ~ Be inconsistent with plans or policies which protect scenic resources. ~ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. ~ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. ~ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. ~ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. There is no quantitative method for assessment of visual quality and aesthetic impacts; accordingly, judgements as to the significance of a particular effect may be expected to differ among viewers. Impact Discussion This section discusses the impacts of the proposed project on the visual quality of the surrounding area, including those arising from the proposed project's height and massing and its visual and urban design compatibility with the surrounding area. Impacts relating to consistency with the City's existing design guidelines are also addressed in this section. Visual simulations of the proposed apartment buildings and grounds were prepared to aid in this analysis. Figures 30 through 34 show simulations of the proposed development's height, massing, and landscaping when viewed from five different vantage points. As shown in Figure 24, representative viewpoints from the north, south, east and west were selected. The proposed project has been evaluated against the standards for development promulgated by the City. This section addresses certain specific visual impacts which would result from the proposed project, and how those impacts could be mitigated. i. Visual Elements of the Proposed Project The proposed project consists of six apartment buildings which would have four floors of apartments over two levels of partially subterranean parking. The buildings would be situated end-to-end in an arc along the west side of Gellert Boulevard at the base of the cut slope. Graphics showing the building footprints and elevations are included in the project description in Chapter 3. The buildings would be approximately October 4, 2oul Chapter 4.3, Page 22 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report 70 feet tall, 253 feet long, and 83 feet wide. They would be set back from Gellert Boulevard fifteen to twenty feet and would be evenly spaced approximately forty feet apart. The exterior elevation drawings developed for the proposed project show elements such as stucco cladding, low-pitched the roofs, and arched windows, drawn from the Mediterranean style of architecture common in the Bay Area. The shape of the buildings is symmetrical and the facade is broken up by regularly-spaced elements such as shallow bays, balconies, and windows. The corners of the buildings are accented by towers extending roughly two feet from the facade, which provide space for covered balconies. The preliminary landscape plan for the proposed project calls for street trees clustered between the buildings and the sidewalk along Gellert Boulevard, screening the lower stories. The species called for can vary from thirty to fifty feet in height when fully mature. Spaced between the buildings, as well as the space between the buildings and the sidewalk along Gellert Boulevard, would contain open lawn areas and flowering groundcover placed along the edges of the lawns. The parking lots on the west side of the buildings, as well as the buildings themselves, would be surrounded by trees. Entryways would be accented by treatments such as flowering accent trees, color pots, benches, and raised planters. The proposed project also includes retaining walls. Four ]0 foot high stepped walls with four feet in between for landscaping would be placed behind the project. The other retaining wall is actually two stepped walls each with a maximum height of 5.33 feet located in front of the buildings along Gellert Boulevard and along the road providing access to the commercial parking lots south of the site. This wall would average approximately five (5) feet in height, with four feet of landscaping space between the wall and the sidewalk where available. ii. Consistency with City Policies The proposed project is consistent with all General Plan policies regarding visual and aesthetic resources. The only applicable design policy is the airport-related 450-foot height limitation, with which the project would be consistent. The proposed project is also consistent with the majority of guidelines pertaining to aesthetic character contained in the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan, specifically: ~ The proposed project would incorporate signage and special plantings to announce entrances and would preserve the views of the existing homes at the top of the slope while taking advantage of view opportunities in the new residences. ~ The project would integrate parking facilities into the buildings in a way that reduces their bulk and visual dominance. The parking facilities would include elements such as windows and architectural detailing to reduce the parking facilities to a pedestrian scale. Entries to the parking facilities would be identified by architectural features, plantings, and lighting. Surface parking lots would be located behind the apartment buildings. ~ Pedestrian areas of the project would include flower planting in pots and seating areas. The hillside open space would be planted with trees and groundcover. ~ The buildings would feature architectural elements such as towers and roof forms to emphasize October 4, toot Chapter 4.3, Page 23 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report key entry points and corners. ~ The roof elevation would not be higher than the finish grade of the houses above, and the roof would slope sufficiently to be partially seen from the opposite curb. ~ The buildings would be spaced roughly forty feet apart to create vertical punctuations between the buildings. ~ All facades would be detailed and subdivided by windows and balconies to relieve monotony and maintain a human scale. ~ Materials and detailing would correspond to building style. ~ Landscaping at the site would exceed minimums set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping would include special trees, potted plants and seating areas at entryways and pedestrian areas. ~ The street edge would be defined visually by changes in grade and paving and the front retaining wall, which would include landscaping. The proposed project would be inconsistent with the following suggestions of the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan: Buildings that hug the slope and step up the hill are preferred over buildings on large flat pads. The elements of the proposed project would be arranged in a line on a flat, graded surface at the bottom of the slope rather than stepping up the slope. The height of their facades would likely block the majority of the western site topography from view. However, this is not considered a significant inconsistency for several reasons. First, the guidance in the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan is only a recommendation, and not a requirement. Second, the site already contains several flat pads, and its sloping areas are so steep that stepped development would not be practical. Third, geotechical considerations preclude construction on the site's slopes. Finally, the project site is not a hillside but is a cut slope created by the development of a roadway. ~ Residential architecture should incorporate a variety of building types, si<,es and heights, and color accents for visual interest, tivith an overall continuity of design. Bt-rifling massing should be varied so that a monotonous rhythm is avoided. /n multiple family areas, provide each group of units with its own identity and entry space to assist in way finding within a development. Each apartment building would be identical in shape and size. Although the building facades do include color accents for visual interest, each building does not have its own identity. This is not considered a significant impact because of the nature of development in the area. The project would be distinct from the single family development to the west, thus providing visual interest and differentiation. The open space on the west slope of the property would also provide visual interest. The proposed project would also be distinct from the service commercial development in the area. Given that the area is extensively developed, save for the project site, and is flanked by a major transportation corridor, the similarity of the buildings may provide an anchor to the area. Glass doors and windows should be of clear glass, rather than heavily tinted or reflective glass. Class curtain walls should he avoided. October 4, toot Chapter 4.3, Page 24 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report ~ Primary building colors should be light neetral tones, such as beige, blue-gray, or cream to act as a background for accent trim, utivnings and signing. A coordinated color sclTeme which responds to the style of the structure shocrld be developed for each building. The colors of signing. awnings, planters, accent materials, and primary facade colors should all be considered. The number of colors should be limited; rainbow-type color schemes are discouraged. The types of glazing and exterior paint to be used for the proposed project have not vet been determined. The conditions of project approval should insure the project's consistency with this recommendation. ~ The screenings necessary to hide the mechunicul eyuipme-it from public areas should be part of the building rather than sa~~-ething added o-- at the end. Trash collection cued storage areas should be grouped and screened kith icall materials that arc similar- to the buildings, prefernbh~ in areas that are away from direct street view. The placement of mechanical and storage areas to serve the proposed project has not yet been determined. The City should condition the project to conform with this design policy. ~ Hillside planting shocrld be carefully chosen to avoid blocking views. According to the preliminary landscape plan for the proposed project, some of the trees which would be planted on the hillside could grow tall enough to block the views from the houses above. The Monterey pine (Pi--c-s radiata) can grow to 80 to 100 feet, the Aleppo pine (Pines halepensis) can reach 60 feet, and the Monterey cypress (Cypresses macrocarpa) can reach more than 40 feet. The landscape plan should be revised to exclude the Monterey pine from the palette. ~ The design of retaining walls on the vacant parcel will bean important factor in the overall visual appearance of the area. A series of low retaining tivalls is preferable to one large wall. Retai-iing walls should be designed to appear to be a part of structures to decrease their visibility and massiveness. Trailing and creeping plants should be a part of the planting treatment for retaining walls. The proposed project design includes two smaller walls along Gellert, which include landscaped areas, and one forty foot wall stepped in ] 0 foot increments with four foot planting areas between the ten-footwalls. iii. Site Character The proposed project would alter the existing visual character of the site by placing ahigh-density residential development on a currently undeveloped parcel of land. Currently the site is an undeveloped cut slope covered in ruderal vegetation, characterized as a "visually-imposing scar" in the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan. The surrounding area lacks a cohesive visual character, in part because the proposed project site is an undeveloped parcel surrounded by mixed uses. The retail shopping centers east of the site are composed of strip malls and "big-box" retail, which are surrounded by large parking lots and are not on a pedestrian scale. Although the residential neighborhoods in the area are comprised largely of single-family homes on a smaller scale than the proposed project, there is at least one existing multi-family development in the October .~, 2001 Chapter 4.3, Page 25 Marbella Rousing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report vicinity which consists of a linear arrangement of Large-scale buildings. Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with the existing visual appearance of the neighborhood. iv. Views of the Site From View Corridor 1 in the north, one end of the northernmost building would be visible from Gellert Boulevard, as seen in the visual simulation in Figure 3l. The retaining wall and parking lot behind the buildings would also be clearly visible. From the south, the proposed project would be visible from several areas of the hilly neighborhoods south of Westborough Boulevard, as well as from a short stretch of Interstate 280. The clearest view of the site from the south would be facing north on Gellert Boulevard at the intersection with Westborough Boulevard, Viewpoint 4 in Figure 24. From this intersection, the full height of five of the six buildings of the site would be visible, as shown in Figure 33. The lower stories would be somewhat screened by landscaping and street trees, but the upper stories and roofs would be clearly visible. Because the project site is slightly higher than the elevation of the viewpoint, the buildings would block almost all of the slope. The houses, trees and power lines at the top of the slope would remain visible. The retaining wall behind the buildings would be visible at the southern end of the site, and the front retaining wall would be clearly visible along Gellert Boulevard. From Interstate 280, View Corridor #4 in Figure 23, at least three of the buildings (Buildings B, C, and D) would be clearly visible for their full height. The rear retaining wall would be visible at some points between the buildings. From the east, the proposed project would be visible from Westborough Boulevard from the entry to Westborough Square Shopping Center to Galway Drive. The clearest view of the proposed project would be from the parking lots of the "big-box" retail centers immediately east of Gellert Boulevard. Viewpoint 3 in Figure 24 shows the view of the proposed project from the northern parking lot entry on Gellert Boulevard. This entry would be directly opposite the main entry to the proposed project. From this viewpoint, the retaining wall along Gellert Boulevard, the landscaping at the base of the buildings, and the full height of the buildings are visible. Due to the curvature of the street, it is unlikely that all six of the buildings would be visible at once. Because of the lower elevation of the parking lot, the roofs of the buildings would not be clearly visible from this perspective. The view of the proposed project from the west would be very limited due to the topography of the area. To the immediate west of the proposed project site, there is a residential neighborhood. This neighborhood is characterized by single-family residences that are oriented north-south on either side of seven cul-de-sacs. The cul-de-sacs are (from north to south): ' Westchester Court ' Williams Court ' Williamsburg Court ' Wren Court ' Wright Court ' Unwin Court ' Liberty Court The cul-de-sacs end in parking stalls which are adjacent to a meandering sidewalk that runs along the top of the slope along the edge of the proposed project site. Between the sidewalk and the proposed project October 4''001 Chapter 4.3, Page 26 Draft Environmental Impact Report Marbella Housing Subdivision site is a chain-link fence, approximately 5 feet high. Approximately four of the seven cul-de-sacs have views of the top terrace of the proposed project site and the City of South San Francisco, San Bruno Mountain and the San Francisco Bay. These views are through the chain link fence, and around the utility towers. At the end of the other three cul-de-sacs dense vegetation blocks the view completely. Similarly, along the meandering sidewalk, there are intermittent views across the proposed project site and out to the San Francisco Bay. All of the residences in this neighborhood are oriented north-south. Some of the residences feature views across the proposed project site and out to San Bruno Mountain and the San Francisco Bay. Views of San Bruno Mountain would and the San Francisco Bay would not be obscured by the proposed project since, the building height would not exceed the height of the top of the slope. Some additional residences probably feature views which are partially blocked by vegetation, utility towers or both. Al] of the views are from small side windows, presumably from kitchens and/or bathrooms, none are from "bay" windows. The only area to the west of the proposed project site from which the proposed project would be visible is the sidewalk at top of the slope, the aforementioned cul-de-sacs and the side-windows of a few the remaining hillside would be visible, as would residences. From these areas at the top of the slope, portions of the parking lot and presumably the full height of the buildings and the landscaping around the base of the buildings. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.3, Page 27 ~ ~' i - //_ ~' ,.... _. ~~~ ,~ --- ~; ~. . ~;- ~ ~.. N f~ W M H Z a W H V W 1 O a W N 0 a 0 a Z r 0 °C ~ a _u >~ o~ m~ ~a ~~ Za ~ ~ = u ~ ~ L Q C J Q J W~ CC ~ Q E ---- # ~ .~:. ?,'' t BLS ;, ~~ j, ~ ~ .t ~ µ_ ~%~- "" ~~`~ Vic' { ' ~r~`~. ~ h E F' ~ }f 3t' ~ ~ ~. '~ G ~~f i P F ~ ~ µ[, _ t~~ d 1 4 ~J ~ ~,, s i~ r~. ~• rl (~'~ it~~ ~ x 4 i ~ e~4s'•.. S L . 4 ~ •tx:., , .., 5. ~~ .,r. _~ SSj .~ .; 4r ~ - r ¢-7 . g =~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,, ~~ ~ # C j ~. -, ~~;.. ~ ~ ~, r' _~ ~ ~ ~' . ~~ trx; ~~ I t ':;~ ~~ ~~ 1,. ...~ ~~ <<. ~. ;.. ~ ~ 3"' a~~~_I m v z~ H ~O W ~ Z ~ w ~ - > ~ ~ ~ G~ ~, a m v 3 ~~ W H F - ~ ~ zQ ~ y Z 7 W ~ F ~ =Z O Q ~ J ~ ~ J > w Z 0 m w w ao W N F~ O ~ a ~ O LL a +~ tr,. <'~' '~ -~ , ~ c +I •~ ~ ~•. tF 4~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ° r' :. ,:. ~;r::~ 4 ~ y ~~° ~ h j ~ Y ~ i+ ~~' .~ ~ ~~ f c, ., ~~ .~,~~ ` ~$ +t ~ v'.'4Xfr s ~.• ~ }, ~. i ~ ~ t'; k Y ay N w% r' ~ ~.. b.' ~~ ,, _ `~1 ~ ~ "'~ • ~~ 1~ vaF"~'~KY z~ ~, ~' 7 ' f f, 1 t "~~ ~ s ~ ~~rNe a~~ ~y1f' Y r ~~ nfK' ~-~ I-~ ~•~k~: ~ _.,N ,fly ~. ~• jM:, t' fi ~ t ~ 'x_` _ -~ ~` ' ., • ~ ~. _ ~• ~ ~ ,.,t'~ ~ r~ ~. k ~. ~ ~ m. fi %;s, °w, h,a .~ , ~ ~~' s ~. `f C+.F M ,. j.~ ~~ h~- F ~~•w S. 4 t '' i 0. x ~~X~~ ~~~ t#. b a: vg` ~. '~` r._ ~ ' <~ .,~~ ~- r~, +~~ ~~ ', _ ;..~ ~, -~< `• ~ ~~ ~ Z ~ ~ O W ~ ~- Z ~ w O ~ la a m ~ . 3 ~d W N ~ Q r y ~Z u W o~ .1 = Z O Q J ~ a J' W z Q m w W OC p Q w N E ~ a ~ ~ O w o~ a Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report v. Views Across the Site From Viewpoint 2 north of the site, the building would block the view of the rest of the buildings as well as of the hills and neighborhoods to the south. Further south along Gellert Boulevard, the line of remaining buildings would come into view, and the retaining wall and the top of the slope would be hidden behind them. From Viewpoint 5, on Interstate 280 south of the site, approximately one-third of the upper part of the slope would be visible to drivers, as would the houses and trees at the top of the slope. From Viewpoint 3, the parking lot entry immediately east of the site, the buildings would block the view of the top of the slope. The rear retaining wall, as well as the homes, trees, and power lines at the top of the slope would only be visible between the buildings. The proposed project would be visible from some areas of the residential neighborhood to the west of the proposed project site. These residences are located at the top of the slope, west of the utility towers and approximately 5-7 feet higher than the western edge of the proposed project site. The parking lots and rooftops of the retail shopping centers east of Gellert Boulevard, the California Golf Club golf course, and the flatland residential areas of South San Francisco would be completely blocked from view. The upper parts of San Bruno Mountain and the East Bay Hills would still be visible over the rooftops of the apartment buildings. The view change from this area would constitute ales-than-significant impact since distant views would remain subtantially unaffected, only the foreground views of the commercial roofs in the Westborough Shopping Center would be obscured. The project would not add additional streetlights along Gellert Boulevard, and light from the streetlights for the parking lots behind the buildings would be blocked from the surrounding area. Lights from the interior of the apartment buildings should not create a substantial impact, since this light source would be similar to the amount of light created by other residential developments in the area. Therefore nighttime views should not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area with which the proposed project would interfere, so there would be no impact on a scenic vista. The project site is not visible from any state scenic highways, therefore the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. d. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact VIS-1: The proposed project could add a significant new source of light or glare to the area. The light from the streetlights or security lighting around the buildings could generate enough light to interfere with visibility for drivers on Westborough Boulevard or Gellert Boulevard, or shine into the homes in the surrounding residential areas. Mitigation Measure VIS-1 a: Night lighting of buildings should be done in a selective fashion and should be indirect, with no light source visible. Mitigation Measure VIS-1 b: Any light source over 10 feet high should incorporate acut-off shield October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.3, Page 38 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report to prevent light spill. Mitigation Measure VIS-lc: Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with, be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements. Impact VIS-2: The walls and windows of the buildings could create glare if the proper materials are not used. Mitigation Measure VIS-2: The primary colors of the buildings should be neutral tones, and bright white tones should be avoided. Glass doors and windows should be of clear glass, rather than heavily tinted or reflective glass. Impact VIS-3: According to the preliminary landscape plan for the proposed project, some of the trees which would be planted on the hillside could grow tall enough to block the views from the houses above. Mitigation Measure_VIS-3: Taller trees such as the Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), and Monterey cypress (Cypressus macrocarpa) should be eliminated from the landscape plan. Shorter trees should be carefully chosen to avoid blocking views. Impact VIS-4: The placement of mechanical and storage areas to serve the proposed project has not yet been determined. If the mechanical and storage areas are visible from the street or are placed in open public areas, a significant impact could result. Mitigation Measure VIS-4: The screenings necessary to hide the mechanical equipment from public areas should be part of the buildings. Trash collection and storage areas should be grouped and screened with wall materials that are similar to the buildings, preferably in areas that are away from direct street view. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.3, Page 39 Marbella Housing Subdivision 4.4 Biology Draft Environmental Impact Report This section describes the existing regulatory setting and biological conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project, and presents an evaluation of the impacts of development on these resources. a. Existing Setting i. Regulatory Setting State and federal agencies have a lead role in the protection of biological resources under their permit authority set forth in various statutes and regulations. At the federal level, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for implementing the federal Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has primary responsibility for protecting wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. At the State level, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is responsible for administration of the State Endangered Species Act, and for protection of streams, waterbodies, and riparian corridors through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Sections 160] -l 606 of the California Fish and Game Code. Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is also required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The following sections summarize specific regulations that pertain to special-status species, sensitive communities and wetlands protection. (1)Special-Status Species and Sensitive Communities Special-status species' are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and/or federal Endangered Species Acts (FESA)2 or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with ' Special-status species include: (1) officially designated (rare, threatened, or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the CDFG; (2) officially designated (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the USFWS; (3) species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, such as those identified on lists lA, 1B, and 2 in the California Native Plant Society's (GNPs) /nventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; and (4) possibly other species which are considered sensitive or of special concern due to limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on lists 3 and 4 in the CNPS /nventory or identified as animal "Species of Special Concern" by the CDFG. Species of Special Concern have no legal protective status under the state Endangered Species Act but are of concern to the CDFG because of severe decline in breeding populations in California. z The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 declares that all federal departments and agencies shall utilize their authority to conserve endangered and threatened plant and animal taxa. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984 parallels the policies of FESA and pertains to native California taxa. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.4, Page 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the Endangered Species Acts often represent major constraints to development, particularly when they are wide ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance. The primary information source on the distribution ofspecial-status species in California is the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) inventory, which is maintained by the Natural Heritage Division of the CDFG. The occurrence data in the CNDDB is obtained from a variety of scientific, academic, and professional organizations, private consulting firms, and knowledgeable individuals. The data is entered into the inventory as expeditiously as possible. The presence of a population of a species of concern in a particular region is an indication that an additional population may occur at another location within the region, if habitat conditions are suitable. Contrarily, the lack of an occurrence in a particular location does not necessarily mean that special-status species are absent from the area in question, only that no data has been entered into the CNDDB inventory. Detailed field surveys are generally required to provide a conclusive determination on presence or absence of sensitive resources from a particular location. It is imperative to determine the potential for special-status species to occur on a site prior to disturbance of the site, since proposed development may result in a "take"~ of these species. In addition to species-oriented management, protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the state. The CDFG maintains occurrence information in the CNDDB inventory of those natural communities which are considered particularly rare or threatened. Although these natural communities have no legal protected status under the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protection under the CEQA Guidelines. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on the relative abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to a known occurrence of a specific community type with a high inventory priority. (l) Wetlands Although definitions vary, wetlands are generally defined as areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and which support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their high inherent "Take" as defined by the FESA means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect" a threatened or endangered species. "Harm" is further defined by the USFWS to include the killing or harming of wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e., breeding, feeding, or sheltering) through significant habitat modification or degradation. The CDFG also considers the loss of listed species habitat as "take", although this policy lacks statutory authority and case law support under the CESA. Two sections of FESA contain provisions which allow or permit "incidental take." Section ]0(a) provides a method by which a state or private action which would result in "take" may be permitted. The applicant must provide the USFWS with an acceptable conservation plan and publish notification for a permit in the Federal Register. Section 7 pertains to a federal agency which proposes to conduct an action which may result in "take," requiring consultation with USFWS and possible issuance of a jeopardy decision. Under the CESA. "take" can be permitted under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code. The applicant must enter into a habitat management agreement with the CDFG. which defines the permitted activities and provides adequate mitigation. October 4, 21101 Chapter 4.4, Page 2 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and flood waters, and water recharge, filtration, and purification functions. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by the Corps and the USFWS, which generally define wetlands based on three specific technical criteria: hydrology, soils, and vegetation. The CDFG and Corps have jurisdiction over modifications to stream channels, river banks, lakes, and other wetland features. Jurisdiction of the Corps is established through the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters" of the United States without a permit, including wetlands and unvegetated "other waters." All three of the identified technical criteria, hydrology, soils, and vegetation, must be met for an area to be identified as a wetland under Corps jurisdictio, except in areas which have been modified by human activity. Although the proposed project site has been modified, the major modifications occurred over 20 years ago and site vegetation has regenerated over the last 20 years. Therefore, for the proposed project site, all three technical criteria would have to be met. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFG over wetland areas is established under Sections 1601-1606 of the Fish and Game Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The Fish and Game Code stipulates that it is "unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantial]y change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake" without notifying the CDFG, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration agreement. The Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFG states that the Fish and Game Commission will "strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands...unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage." The CDFG is also responsible for commenting on projects requiring Corps permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. ii. Existing Biological Setting Information in this section is based on findings from the reports by Thomas Reid Associates and Zenter and Zenter which are included, in their entirety, as Appendices D and E of this document. (1) Background and Methodology Biological resources were identified through the review and compilation of existing information and field surveys. Information reviewed included records on special-status species and sensitive natural communities maintained by the CNDDB, and the following reports, commissioned by the applicant and included as Appendices D, E and F of this Draft EIR: ~ Biological Assessment by Thomas Reid Associates (dated December 9, 1999). ~ Special-Status Butterfly Assessment by Zentner and Zentner (dated August 3, 2000). ~ Section 404 Jurisdictional Delineation by Zentner and Zentner (dated April 18, 2001). Field surveys were conducted by Zenter and Zenter, the applicant's biologist and wetland specialist, and Jim Martin of Environmental Collaborative who conducted a peer review of the previous biological studies. The review and field surveys provided information on common biological resources, and presence or absence of any special-status species and/or jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The following site visits October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.4, Page 3 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report were conducted: • Afield reconnaissance and inspection for golden violet (Viola pedunculata), a larval host plant for one of the special-status butterfly species which was conducted on April ]0, 2001. • An inspection forpotential wetlands with a representative of Zentner and Zentner and verification of the findings of the wetlands delineation on May 1, 2001. Based on the seasonal variation of the site visits and conditions encountered on the site and during these surveys, no additional field surveys are needed. (2) Vegetation The site has been extensively altered by past grading activities which has eliminated most of the native plant cover. Non-nati ve grassland and scrub now forms the predominant cover over most of the site. Some locations support areas of planted ornamental and ruderal (weedy) species as well as dense stands of native willow scrub and non-native trees. A description of the various community types and associated wildlife species follows. Grassland and Scrub. Most of the site supports acover ofnon-native grassland with planted ornamental shrubs and invasive weedy species. The grasslands are composed ofnon-native annual grasses and forbs, such as slender wild oats (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), broad-leaf filaree (Erodium brachycarpum), lotus (Lotus corniculatus), and plantain (Plantago coronopus). Ruderal or weedy species such as bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and the highly invasive jubata grass (Cortaderia jubata) form the dominant cover in some locations in the grasslands. Plantings of ornamental rockrose (Cistus creticus) also occur throughout the cut slopes on the site, along with native species that have become naturally re-established, such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), tree lupine (Lupinus arboreus), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). Wildlife use of the site is limited by the extent of surrounding development and isolation from undeveloped open space lands. The grasslands continue to support a number of small mammals and birds, which in turn serve as prey for predatory species. Common species which occur on the site include: • California vole • Botta pocket gopher • Raccoon • English sparrow • White-crowned sparrow Predatory birds which most likely forage in the remaining grasslands in the vicinity include: • American kestrel • Red-tailed hawk • Turkey vulture The scattered shrubs most likely provide protective cover and perching substrate for several species of October a, 2001 Chapter 4.4, Page 4 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report birds, such as wrentit and Anna's humming bird, and small mammals and birds foraging in the adjacent grassland may retreat into areas of dense brush. However, no nests were observed in the shrubs on the site and the scrub is considered to have only low habitat value. Willow Scrub. Several thickets of native willow (Salix lasiolepis) are scattered throughout the site. The largest of these occupies a little over one acre in the southeastern portion of the site near the parking lot to the Mc Donald's restaurant. Smaller thickets occur on the cut slopes and along excavated drainage ditches on the site. Although willow can be an indicator of jurisdictional wetland habitat, their occurrence on the site appears to be a result of seasonal seepage on the cut slopes and terraces rather than an active spring or jurisdictional wetlands. Willows often occur in transitional habitats which are not technically wetlands, such as the fringe of riparian corridors. No evidence of any other wetland indicator species were observed during the wetland delineation conducted by Zentner and Zentner. The dense cover associated with the willow does provide protective cover to wildlife. However, high numbers of feral cats most likely limits the use of the willow scrub in the southeastern portion of the site by nesting birds. As with other scrub, the isolation of the willow cover from other natural areas limits its habitat value. Ornamental Landscaping. A dense stand ofnon-native trees occur in the 60-foot wide finger of the site which extends to Westborough Boulevard. These consist of cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) plantings. Understory vegetation is generally absent under the dense trees due to the continuous canopy. A few scattered acacia (Acacia sp.) and wax myrtle (Myrica californica) occur on the cut slopes above the main portion of the site, together with the extensive plantings of rockrose. The trees may serve as nesting substrate for numerous species of birds, although no active nests were observed during the April 2001 field reconnaissance. (3) Special-Status Species and Sensitive Communities According to records maintained by the CNDDB, nopopulations ofspecial-status plant or animal species have been reported from the site or adjacent lands. As concluded in the Biological Assessment by Thomas Reid Associates and the Special-Status Butterfly Assessment by Zentner and Zentner, the extent of past disturbance limits the likelihood that any species of concern occur on the site. Species listed in the Biological Assessment as suspected to possibly occur on the site in the Biological Assessment are listed in Table 7, including 5 animal and l 2 plant species of concern. The extent of past grading and disturbance, and the absence of suitable habitat precludes the occurrence of any of these special-status species on the site. More specifically: ~ Larval host plants for special-status butterfly species are not present ~ Suitable breeding habitat is not present for California red-legged frog, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Tomales isopod, and/or San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataeniaa) ~ Undisturbed grassland and scrub for special-status plant species is not present. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.4, Page 5 Marbella Housing Subdivision (4) Wetlands Draft Environmental Impact Report A preliminary wetland delineation was conducted by the applicant's wetland specialist, Zentner and Zentner, which concluded that no jurisdictional wetlands occur on the site. Several man-made drainage ditches convey surface and subsurface water off the site. Zentner and Zentner has concluded that they are exempt from Corps jurisdiction since they were constructed in uplands. The large stand and scattered clumps of willow were determined to not meet the Corps definition as jurisdictional wetland due to the abundance of upland species in the understory at representative sample points. As noted previously, willows often occur in transitional habitats which are not technically wetlands. No evidence of any other wetland indicator species were observed during the wetland delineation conducted by Zentner and Zentner. The peer review conducted for this EIR did not find reasons to dispute Zentner and Zentner's findings. Table 7 Local Sensitive Species Animals Mission Blue Butterfly (Icardcia icarloidas missionensis) San Bruno elfin butterfly (Incisalia mossii bayensis) callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe) California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) Salt marsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) Tomales isopod (Caecldotea tomalensis) Plants San Bruno Mountain manzanita (Arctostaphylos imbricata) Pacific manzanita (Arctostaphylos Pacifica) Montara Manzanita (Arctostaphylos montaraensis) San Francisco lessingia (Lessingia germanorum) Robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta) San Francisco Spineflower (Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata) Beach layla (Layla carnosa) Kellogg's horkelia (Horkelia cuneata sericea) San Francisco Campion (Silene verecunda verecunda) San Francisco owl's clover (Triphysaria floribunda) October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.4, Page 6 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Animals Mission Blue Butterfly (Icardcia icarloidas missionensis) San Francisco gum plant (Grindelia hirsutala maritima) White-rayed pentacheata (Peiitachaeta belldiflora) iii Standards of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant biological impact if it would: ~ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ~ Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ~ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. ~ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. ~ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. ~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. b. Impact Discussion Proposed development would replace existing non-native grassland and scrub with new buildings, parking, and landscape improvements. No special-status species or sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands, or important wildlife habitat would be impacted, and no significant impacts to biological or wetland resources are anticipated. A large portion of the upper elevations of the site would remain undisturbed, serving to preserve much of the existing non-native grassland, scattered clumps of willow, and the dense woodlot near Westborough Boulevard. Wildlife would continue to utilize the undisturbed portion of the site, and those species common to suburban habitat would eventually use the landscaped areas of the new development. c. Impacts and Mitigation Measures No significant impacts on biological or wetland resources would occur, and no mitigation measures are October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.4, Page 7 Marbella Housing Subdivision necessary. Draft Environmental Impact Report October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.4, Page 8 Marbella Housing Subdivision 4.5 Hazardous Materials a. Existing Setting Draft Environmental Impact Report This section provides an overview of the existing conditions at the proposed project site related to potential health and environmental concerns from hazardous materials. It includes a review of hazardous materials regulatory framework and worker health and safety/environmental protection requirements, as well as an identification of past activities that could have produced hazardous materials at the site. This section is based on the Phase I Analysis', a site reconnaissance and records search conducted to evaluate the potential for hazardous materials at the site. i. Regulatory Setting The use, production and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are regulated extensively by federal, state, regional and local regulations and guidance, with major objectives of protecting public health and the environment. These regulations and guidance were developed primarily for application in industrial and manufacturing environments where worker health and safety and waste production as a byproduct of manufacturing occurs. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency responsible for enforcing federal regulations that affect public health and the environment. The EPA designates much of its regulatory authority to the individual states. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) within the California EPA enforces hazardous materials law and regulations in California in conjunction with the federal EPA. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) presents California's hazardous waste laws. In general, a material is a hazardous waste if it poses a threat to human health or the environment. Under California law, approximately 800 substances are listed as potentially hazardous depending on their chemical property or combination of properties.z A hazardous waste can be present in a liquid, semi-solid, solid, or gaseous form. California law requires that the generator of a potentially hazardous waste determine if said material is in fact hazardous and stipulates the The applicant commissioned a Phase 1 Preliminary Site Assessment and Limited Soil Quality Investigation, which was conducted by Renshaw Associates and dated June 9, 2000. The report is included in its entirety in Appendix X. CCR, Section 66680. CCR, Section 6671. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.5, Page 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report criteria and analytical methods for the determination of a waste as hazardous.' Local regulations on the county and city level are involved in setting standards of care in the use, storage and handling of hazardous materials. ii. Existing and Historic Site Conditions The Phase I Analysis conducted for the proposed project site included the following components: • Site reconnaissance, conducted on April 6, 2000. • Discussions with regulatory officials and review of regulatory agency publications and files. • A review of historic aerial photographs of the site. • Collection and analysis of two composite soil samples. A review of historic photos and documents pertaining to the proposed project site revealed that the site has undergone periodic and extensive grading and fill operations, starting in the early 196Os, which have drastically changed the topography of the site. The grading began as a part of a large quarry operation which was located to the southeast of the site. From 1981 to 1983 a small rectangular structure was centrally located along the eastern side of the site. Grading operations seemed to cease in 1991, when the northern portion of the site was graded. The site has remained unchanged and undeveloped since that time. In recent years, the central portion of the site, adjacent to the intersection of Gellert Boulevard and the shopping center driveway, has been used seasonally for the sale of Christmas trees. On February 9, 2001 an additional soil quality analysis was conducted to determine the presence of arsenic or hexavalent chromimum above laboratory method reporting limits (Study attached in Appendix J). • Soil Quality Evaluation, Renshaw Associates, February 9, 2001. Table 8a sets forth the results of soil samples conducted at four locations to a depth of one foot and four feet in the vicinity of the soil samples taken for the Phase I investigation. The EPA Method 6010B for arsnic detection and EPA Method 7196A was used for hexavalent chromimum detection. The site does not appear to be impacted by arsenic or hexavalent chromimum (chromium IV). ' CCR. Section 66680 and 66693 et seq. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.5, Page 2 Marbella Housing Subdivision Table 8a Draft Environmental Impact Report ANALYTE RS-1 ,2,3-1 RD-1,2,3-4 TTLC RPG Arsenic-EPA ND ND 500 22 6010B Chromium VV- ND ND 500 30 EPA 7196A Notes: RS-1,2,3-1: Composite of samples collected at three locations at a depth of one foot. RS-1,2,3-4: Composite of samples collected at three locations at a depth of four feet. ND: Not detected at or above laboratory method reporting limits. RPG: Preliminary Remediation Goal for residential land use-EPA Region IX. TTLC: Total Threshold Limit Concentration, In addition to reviewing aerial photographs, the following agencies were contacted with regard to the proposed project site: • San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Agency (SMCEHSA) ~ South San Francisco Public Works Department ~ South San Francisco Building and Fire Prevention Department None of these agencies had additional information about the proposed project site. In addition, there is not a Sanborn Map available which covers the proposed project site. iii. Existing Regional Conditions Since the proposed project is a residential development, it is important to ensure that there are no producers of toxic emissions within a close radius of the proposed project site. A records search was conducted to determine whether sites with documented environmental problems exist within l~/a radius of the proposed project site. Table 8 shows a summary of the findings of this search. In addition to the records search, composite soil samples, performed in accordance with standard industry practices, were taken from three locations on the site at depths of one to four feet. Compositing of samples means that all three samples from one foot below ground surface (bfs) were combined as one sample, as were all samples from four feet bfs. The composite samples were subsequently analyzed for the presence of the following contaminates: ~ Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) ~ Purgeable Aromatic Compounds (PACs) October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.5, Page 3 Marbella Housing Subdivision ~ 13 priority pollutant metals, including: • Antimony • Arsenic • Beryllium • Cadmium • Chromium • Copper • Lead • Mercury • Nickel • Selenium • Silver • Thallium • Zinc ~ Organochlorine pesticides ~ Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Draft Environmental Impact Report The findings of the laboratory analyses are summarized quantitatively in Table 9. Potential impacts are discussed in Section C, below. b. Sta~zdards of Significance The proposed project would have an impact with respect to hazardous materials if it would: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.5, Page 4 TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTED ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS Number of Radius- Sites Type of Site Miles Located Site Location National Priority List i'/, None - NPLDeletions 1'/4 None - CERCLIS 3/ None - CERCLA NFRAP List '/z None - RCRA Corrective Action Report 1'/e None - RCRIS-permitted treatment, storage '/ None - and disposal facilities _ __ RCRIS Lazge Quantity Generators '/z None - RCRIS Small Quantity Generators '/z 3 • Exxon Service Station - 2296 Westborough Blvd. ~ Westborough Arco - 2300 Westborough Blvd. • Walgreens = 2238 Westborough Blvd. Emergency Response Notification - Not listed - System State-Equivalent Priority List 1'/, None _ _ - _ State-Equivalent CERCLIS List 1'/, _ None -- California Hazardous Material 1'/e None - Incident Report System _ CORTESE 1'/ 11 • Fire Station N4 - 2350 Galway Drive • Exxon Service Station - 2296 Westborough • Westborough Arco - 2300 Westborough • 8 other insignificant sites aze at least '/: mile from the site Proposition 65 1'/ 1 • Westborough Arco - 2300 Westborough Blvd. Toxic Pits Cleanup Facilities 1'/, None -- State Landfill List '/+ None - Waste Management Unit Database '/, None - State Leaking Underground Storage - ~/ 3 • Fire Station N4 - 2350 Galway Drive Tanks • Exxon Service Station - 2296 Westborough Blvd. • Westborough Arco - 2300 Westborough Blvd_ State Hazardous Substance Storage '/2 5 • Fire Station d4 - 2350 Galway Drive • Exxon Service Scation - 2296 Westborough Blvd. Containers • Prestige Stations Inc N624 - 2300 Westborough Blvd. • 2 other insignficant sites Number of Radius- Sites Type of Site Miles Located Site Location California Bond Expenditure Plan 1t/, None _ State Facility Inventory Database ~/z 3 • Fire Station N4 - 2350 Galway Drive • Exxon Service Station - 2296 Westborough Blvd. • Westborough Arco - 2300 Westborough Blvd. Superfund Consent Decrees li/, None _ Records of Decision 1t/ None _ USEPA Facility Index System 1'/, None _ US Department of Transportation - Not listed _ Hazardous Material Information Recording System Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Not listed _ Material Licensing Tracking System Mines Master Index File t/ None _ Federal Superfund Liens -- Not listed _ PCB Activity Database System - Not listed __ RCRA Administrative Action - Not listed _ Tracking System Toxic Release Inventoray System - Not listed _ Toxic Substances Control Act - Not listed _ State Aboveground Petroleum Storage - Not listed _ Tank Facilities California Waste Discharge System - Not listed California Toxics List ~/ None _ Hazardous Waste Information System '/z 18 • Exxon Service Station - 2296 Westborough Blvd. Source • Westborough Arco - 2300 Westborough Blvd. • 16 other insignificant sites Business Inventory t/z 7 • Fire Station N4 - 2350 Galway Drive • Exxon Service Station - 2296 Westborough Blvd. • Westborough Arco - 2300 Westborough Blvd. • 4 other insignificant sites Source: Phase 1 Preliminary Site Assessment, South San Francisco, Henshaw Associates TABLE 9 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS Analyte GS-i GS-4 GS-4(R) TTLC PRG TPH as Diesel - CA/LUFT ND 15'r - NA NA TPH as Gasoline - CA/LLTFT ND ND - NA NA Purgeable Aromatics -EPA 8021B ND ND -- NA _ _ NA Pesticides -EPA 8081 ND ND -- NA NA PCBs -EPA 8082 ND ND -- NA NA VOCs -EPA 8260 ND ND - NA NA Metals -EPA 6010A/7471A Antimony ND ND - 500 30 Arsenic 31 31/2.6** 2.6 500 21 Beryllium ND ND - 75 _ 150 Cadmium ND ND -- 100 9*'~'~ Chromium 43 46 -- 2500 210 Copper 5 5 - _ _ 2500 _ _ 2800 Lead 10 13 - 1000 130*** Mercury ND ND -- 20 22 Nickel 36 37 - 2000 150*** Selenium ND ND - 100 370 Silver ND ND - 500 370 Thallium ~ ND ND - 700 NA Zinc - 5000 22000 Notes: Results reported in mg/kg (parts per million) ND: Not detected at or above the laboratory method reporting limits PRG: Preliminary Remediation Goal for residential land use -EPA Region IX TTLC: Total Threshold Limit Concentration NA: Not applicable *: Sample contains higher boiling point hydrocarbon mixture quantitated as diesel Chromatogram does aot match typical dusel fingerprint **: Sample re-analyzed at second laboratory reports 2.6 mg/kg for azsenic ***: California EPA modified PRG Source: Soil Analytical Results; Gellert Boulevard, South San Francisco, Renshaw Associates Marbella Housing Subdivision c. Impact Discussion Draft Environmental Impact Report The proposed project is a housing subdivision which would not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Since neither the construction nor the occupation phase of the proposed project would involve producing or handling toxic substances, there would not be risk of release of toxic substances into the environment. The proposed project site is undeveloped, so no demolition would be required as part of the construction phase. Therefore, there is no risk of release of toxic substance such as asbestos during the construction of the project. The proposed project site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, nor would it produce toxic emissions. Therefore, no impact would occur. As described above, the soils samples were tested for five sets of potential contaminates. The quantitative results are shown in Table 9. The impacts from soil contamination are as follows: TPHs. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons were analyzed for presence as diesel or gasoline. TPHs as gasoline were not detected in quantities above the method reporting limits in any of the samples. TPHs as diesel were not detected insample GS-1. Sample GS-4 contained 15 milligrams per kilogram of a substance classified as diesel, which is above the method reporting threshold, but below the significance threshold for TPHs. PACs. Purgeable Aromatic Compounds were not detected above laboratory method reporting limits in any of the samples. No impact would occur as a result of the presence of PACs. • Metals. None of the sample contained metals at concentrations above the respective EPA Preliminary Remediation Goals for residential land uses or the Total Threshold Limit Concentrations. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the presence of metals in the soil. • Pesticides. No pesticides were detected in the soil sample. Therefore, no impact would occur. • VOCs. None of the samples contained Volatile Organic Compounds above laboratory method reporting limits. Therefore, no impact would occur. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.5, Page 8 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report d. Impacts and Mitigation Measures As stated above, no impacts would occur as a result of the presence of hazardous materials on the proposed site or the construction or occupation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.5, Page 9 Marbella Housing Subdivision 4.6 Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report This section describes the existing and future noise conditions in the vicinity of the project, and presents an evaluation of the significance of project-generated noise and of environmental noise on the project. a. Existing Setting i. Regulatory Setting Noise policies and guidelines are set forth in the South San Francisco General Plan. Sources of noise in South San Francisco are categorized as being either aircraft-generated or locally-generated. The accepted threshold of significance for excessive noise levels is 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL measures noise exposure over an average day with weighting to reflect the varying degrees of sensitivity to noise during daytime and nighttime hours. The CNEL is the reference level for State noise law and is used to express continuous noise sources such as aircrafts or automobile traffic. According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, residential developments which are planned in areas which are exposed to noise levels of 65 dB CNEL or higher require an analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed. In reference to aircraft-generated noise, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has established noise/land use compatibility standards. ALUC's 1995 San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) Land Use Plan establishes the 65 dB CNEL contour as the noise impact boundary for SFIA. This is consistent with noise restrictions in the California Administrative Code, Title 2l ,Subchapter 6 "Noise Standards." Development activity within the 65 dB CNEL boundary requires the approval of the ALUC prior to local permit issuance. According to these standards, residential uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour would be acceptable with insulation that meets the 45 dB interior noise standard. The following are applicable noise policies from the South San Francisco General Plan: ~ 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-G-1). ~ 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 (Noise Element 9-I-4). ~ Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures (Noise Element 9-I-S). ~ Where site conditions permit. require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject October 4, 2001 Chpt -1.6 Page 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the cese of visible sound walls, where practical (Noise Element 9-1-6). ii. Existing Noise Environment The City of South San Francisco, is subject to noise from a variety of sources including traffic, railroad, and aircraft noise from SFIA. (]) Traffic South San Francisco has excellent road access. As a result, noise impacts in the City are fairly high, especially near Highway 101 and Interstate 280. These routes are heavily used by both cars and trucks. (2) Railroads The Southern Pacific Railroad line generates relatively high average noise levels from Southern Pacific freight trains and CalTrain commuter trains. The majority of this noise is generated in close proximity to Highway 101, since the rail lines run adjacent to the Highway. (3) San Francisco International Airport The entirety of the City of South San Francisco is highly susceptible to noise impacts due to the presence of SFIA. The city lies directly in the flight path of a large percentage of departures from SFIA. In addition, SFIA has planned expansion though 2006 which includes the construction of a new international terminal, modification of parking and circulation in the airport complex and development of additional maintenance and support facilities. The increase in operations at SFIA is counterbalanced by the ongoing phase-out of Stage 2 aircrafts in favor of quieter Stage 3 aircrafts, and the increase in noise levels due to airport expansion are not considered to be significant. b. Standards of Significance The proposed project would result in a significant noise impact if it would result in any of the following: ~ Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of the 65 dB noise standard established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, and applicable standards of other agencies. ~ Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. ~ Creation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. ~ Creation of a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. ~ Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to an airport or private airstrip. October 4, 2001 Chpt 4.6 Page 2 Marbella Housing Subdivision c. Impact Discussion i. Traffic Noise Levels Draft Environmental Impact Report The proposed project site is located in close proximity to Interstate 280. According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, the northeastern portion of the proposed project site lies between the 65 and 70 dB CNEL noise contours for road noise generated by Interstate 280. This constitutes a potentially significant impact on the project. ii. Rail Noise Levels The railroad lines run adjacent to Highway 101 in the East of 101 area of South San Francisco. The proposed project site is located approximately l.5 miles from Highway 101, and does not lie within the 65 dB CNEL contour for noise generated by rail traffic. iii. Aircraft Noise Levels The project site does not fall within the 65 dB CNEL impact boundary for SFIA. However, it does lie within the boundaries for the retrofit area as designated by the South San Francisco General Plan and the ALUC's plan. This constitutes a potentially significant impact on the project. iv. Construction Noise Levels Construction of the proposed project could create temporary noise impacts in the surrounding area. Noise impacts would depend on the noise generated by the various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and length of noise-generating activities, and the distance between noise-generating activities and noise- sensitive areas. Construction activities are generally carried out in stages. During each stage of construction, there would be a different mix of construction equipment operating. Most construction noise results in a maximum level of 80 to 90 dB at 50 feet. Grading and paving equipment typically emit maximum noise levels of about 85 dB at a distance of 50 feet. On-site truck traffic generates similar noise levels. Other sources of construction noise include concrete pumping equipment, hammers, saws, compressors, nail guns, construction workers' radios, and other light equipment associated with construction of buildings. d. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact NOISE-1: Portions of the study area would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL due to existing noise generated by traffic on I-280. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Detailed acoustical analyses should be prepared to specify the treatments necessary to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL in units on the northern part of the site. The acoustical analysis should be prepared and submitted with the building plans prior to issuance of building permits, and all recommendations should be implemented. October 4, 2001 Chpt X1.6 Page 3 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Impact NOISE-2: Although the proposed project site is not located within the 65 dB impact area for fly- over noise from SFIA, it is within the retrofit project area, indicating that there is a significant impact to noise from the airport at this location. Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: The proposed project should be designed to comply with the retrofit guidelines for the ALUC retrofit area. This may include the use ofdouble-paned glass, insulation requirements or other noise-reduction measures. Impact NOISE-3: During the construction phase, construction-related noise could temporarily increase noise levels for residential receptors, particularly for residents located above Gellert Drive on the streets leading north from Galway Drive. Businesses along Westborough Boulevard between Gellert Boulevard and Interstate 280 may also be impacted. Therefore, the following mitigation measures should be incorporated: Mitigation Measure NOISE-3a: Noise-generated construction activities, including vehicular and truck traffic, should be limited to the hours currently specified in the Noise Ordinance. Other hours may be authorized by the City if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: ~ No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. ~ The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dB. Mitigation Measure NOISE-3b: Construction truck traffic should use the routes which result in the least noise impact for existing developed residential receptors. Mitigation Measure NOISE-3c: The construction schedule should be posted at public locations in the project area. October 4, 2001 Chpt 4.6 Page ~ Marbella Housing Subdivision 4.7 Geology and Seismicity Draft Environmental Impact Report This section describes the existing geologic setting and conditions on and around the proposed project site, and presents an evaluation of the impacts of the site geology on the proposed project. a. Existing Setting i. Geology The proposed project site is located in the Coast Range geomorphic province of California in the presence of the active San Andreas fault system in the general boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate which are moving northward and southward, respectively. This plate movement is distributed across a system of strike-slip, right lateral, parallel and subparallel faults. ii. Seismicity The following faults are located in the vicinity of the proposed project site: • San Andreas Fault- 1 mile southwest • San Gregorio Fault- 5 miles southwest • Monte Vista- Shannon Fault- 18 miles southwest • Hayward Fault- 19 miles northeast • Calavaras Fault- 27 miles southwest • Rogers Creek Fault- 31 miles north • Concord- Green Valley Fault- 31 miles northeast Due to the proximity of these faults, the proposed project site could be subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. The closest fault line in proximity to the project site is the San Andreas Fault, which transverses South San Francisco at a point approximately three quarters of a mile southwest of the proposed project site. The Alquist-Priolo map for the San Andreas Fault delineates the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as being a 1,000 foot wide band which surrounds the San Andreas Fault. The only areas of South San Francisco which are subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault are within this Special Studies boundary, which does not include the project site. October 4, 200] Chapter 4.7 Page 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report iii. Slopes and Landslides The proposed project site is located on an artificially cut and engineered, terraced slope. Figure 35 shows across-section of the proposed site which illustrates that the site is cut into 10-foot wide benches at 30-foot vertical intervals. The overall pattern of site topography is dominated by a 100- foot high 1.5 to 1 vertical slope. The site was extensively graded in the late 1970's will fill thicknesses up to 40 feet and cut depths up to 140 feet. The southern portion of the existing high slope is comprised of engineered fill. The cut slope is more than 20 years old and has not been well maintained, however it has generally performed well. There are earth-flow-type slope failures on the south end of the site and shallow soil slumps scattered across the site. In addition, there is an area of the site where the bedding of the sandstone bedrock has been `daylighted', or is exposed, which is a potentially adverse condition. Soil slumps are the downslope movement of an accumulation of loose materials including rock fragments, soil material and organic matter. The material becomes detached from the underlying rock mass by chemical or mechanical means such as decay and disintegration. Soil slumps occur on the cut slope in the north central portion of the property, where weathering of the bedrock is shallow. In these areas, dense stands of vegetation such as ice plant have overcome the strength of the shallow soils. b. Standards of Significa~zce The proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to geology and seismicity if it would result in any of the following: • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as aresult of on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. • Substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. • Exposure of persons or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault. • Strong seismic ground shaking. • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. • Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards. • Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.7 Page 2 Marbella Housing Subdivision c. Impact Discussion Draft Environmental Impact Report As listed in the "standards of significance" section, there are several types of geologic impacts which could occur on the project site, including: slope failure subsidence liquefaction collapse expansion lateral spreading Slope stability is of some concern since the proposed project site is an artificial cut slope. However, the proposed project would be constructed on the less steep portion of the site and it includes a series of engineered retaining walls to assist with slope stability in the undeveloped areas. As the proposed grading and retaining walls would adequately address slope stability measures, no mitigation is needed. In addition, the San Francisco Bay Area is seismically active, therefore seismically-related ground failure is also of concern. Seismic-related ground subsidence is a sudden compression of soil which results from seismic activity. Specifically, it occurs when dry, cohesionless soils are subjected to earthquake vibrations of high amplitude. This type of soil is not found on the site, therefore ground subsidence on the site is highly unlikely. Liquefaction is the transformation of a saturated, cohesionless soil into a viscous liquid during strong ground shaking from a major earthquake. The geotechnical analysis did not find evidence of historic liquefaction. In addition, the type of soil which is susceptible to liquefaction was not encountered on the site. Due to the general absence of loose, sandy soils on the site, liquefaction and the related risks of lateral spreading, ground subsidence and collapse are not likely to occur. The local sandstone bedrock does not typically weather to an expansive clay soil. Additionally, no expansive soils were located on the site during the geotechnical investigation. Sewer service is available for the site; no septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would be required. October 4, 2001 Chapter 4.7 Page 3 ~~% -?---~ Apparent Bedding Altitude Approximate Groundwater Level, 5-10-0 M A R B E L L A H O U S I N G S U B D I V I S I O N DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Existing Ground Surface FIGURE 35 r i•s Test Pit Location, BGC, 5-2000 9.5 SITE GROSS SECTIONS Boring Location, ESO, I I - 1985 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report d. linpacts and Mitigation Measures IMPACT GEO-1: The presence of an artificial cut slope coupled with the elevated level of groundwater could result in potential slope stability concerns over the life of the project. Miti ation Measure GEO-1: The design-level geotechnical investigation should include recommendations for lowering ground water within the slope. One acceptable method to accomplish this would be to drill a line of wells vertically into a cut bench above the upper retaining walls. The wells could be backfilled with drain rock and connected to the lower slope surface by directionally drilling at the lines back into the slope to intersect the vertical wells near their bottoms. All recommendations in the design-level geotechnical investigation should be implemented. IMPACT GEO-2: The City of South San Francisco is in aseismically-active region like the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area. Therefore, to prevent significant damage to structures in the event of seismic activity, the following mitigation measure should be incorporated: Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The structural design of the proposed houses should conform with the Uniform Building Code. Specifically, the following criteria should be used: • Seismic Zone: 4 • Seismic Source Type: A • Soil Profile Type Sc • Distance to fault: 3/4 mile IMPACT GEO-3: Minor landslides have occurred within the limits of the proposed project site. There is an earthflow landslide in the south portion of the site which is outside the area proposed for development. Construction on historic landslides would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of the site on which landslides or soil slumps have occurred should be remediated to protect project improvements, roadways and/or adjacent properties. October 4, 2oul Chapter 4.7 Page 5 Marbella Housing Subdivision 5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft Environmental Impact Report The Marbella Housing Subdivision project, as proposed by the project proponent, has been described and analyzed in the previous chapters with an emphasis on potentially significant impacts and recommended mitigation measures to avoid those impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines also require the description and comparative analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain the objectives of the project. The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision makers of the feasible alternatives that consider mitigation measures recommended in this EIR. Analysis of glower-density site development alternative is also provided in this chapter. CEQA guidelines require consideration of a "No Project Alternative" in every EIR. In most project EIRs, the No Project Alternative is assumed to be one in which no development would occur on the project site. Such an alternative is considered as the No Project Alternative in this EIR. CEQA guidelines also require that the environmentally superior alternative be designated. If the alternative with the least environmental impact is the No Project Alternative, than the EIR must also designate the most environmentally superior alternative. The following site development alternatives are discussed and analyzed below: • The No Project Alternative, which would retain the project site in its current state with no development. ~ The Low Density Alternative, which retains the general nature of the development, but which contains 74 housing units instead of 280 housing units. Both of these alternatives are compared against the proposed project and discussed in terms with of whether it would have a mitigating or adverse effect on the environment. Table ]0 shows a qualitative comparison of both of the project alternatives. a. No Project Alternative i. Principal Characteristics Under this alternative, the project site would not be developed and would be retained in its current configuration. The site is currently characterized by steep overall site topography and scattered ruderal vegetation. ii. Impact Analysis (1) Land Use and Public Policy October 4, 2001 Chapter 5, Page I Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Because no development would occur on the project, there would be no land use conflicts as a result of the No Project Alternative. (2) Traffic If no development were to occur on the site, traffic conditions would be expected to remain relatively constant with volumes steadily increasing as a result of other approved development in the area. Three of the intersections in the project are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS E or lower. Since the No Project Alternative would not increase traffic volumes, this alternative is considered better than development of the site. (3) Visual Resources The undeveloped site is not of high aesthetic value in its current state as an undeveloped cut slope covered in ruderal vegetation. However, the visual, design and light and glare impacts described in this EIR for the proposed project would not occur under the No Project Alternative since the existing open space land use of the site would not change. Overall, the No Project Alternative is considered to have less of a visual impact than development of the site. (4) Biology Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no disturbance to site vegetation. However, since the majority of the proposed project site is covered in ruderal vegetation and sparse shrubbery of little biological value, development of the proposed project site would not result in any biological impacts. Therefore the No Project Alternative isnot environmentally superior with regard to biological resources. (5) Hazardous Materials The proposed project does not contain hazardous materials or require hazardous materials remediation, nor is it located in the vicinity of emitors of hazardous materials. Neither the development of the proposed project site nor the No Project Alternative would have impacts with regard to hazardous materials. (6) Noise No construction-related noise impacts would occur with the No Project Alternative. However those construction-related noise impacts that would occur with the proposed project could easily be prevented through the implementation of standard construction-period mitigation measures. The impacts to the proposed residential subdivision as a result of the proximity to the San Francisco International Airport could also be easily mitigated. Therefore the difference in noise impacts between the No Project Alternative and the proposed project are considered less than significant. October 4, 2001 Chapter 5, Page 2 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report TABLE 10 COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES No Impact Factors Project 74-Unit Alternative Land Use + _ Traffic + _ Visual Resources ++ + Biology = _ Hazardous Materials = _ Noise + _ Geology and Seismicity ++ _ ++ Substantial improvement compared to the proposed project. + Insubstantial improvement compared to the proposed project. = Same impact as proposed project. - Insubstantial deterioration compared to the proposed project. - - Substantial deterioration compared to the proposed project. (7) Geology and Seismicity Potentially significant impacts regarding slope stability, elevated ground water levels, regional seismic activity and landslide activity would result from development of the proposed project. These impacts could be mitigated to ales-than-significant level, but would be avoided entirely if the site were not developed under the No Project Alternative. Therefore the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior with regard to geologic and seismic impacts. iii. Ability to Meet Project Objectives As summarized in the Project Description in Chapter 3 of this document, project objectives are to develop ahigh-density residential subdivision which is aesthetically pleasing, designed to fit into the surrounding neighborhood and creates affordable housing, which is in short supply in San Francisco Bay Area. While the No Project Alternative would preserve existing views and retain the character of the residential neighborhood, it would not meet the project objectives since no development would occur. b. 74-Unit Project Alternative i. Principal Characteristics This alternative would be a 74-unit subdivision comprised of detached single family homes. The 74-Unit Alternative would include two parallel rows of houses along the east and west sides of a private roadway. Approximately 8.03 acres of the site would remain open space. This alternative would also necessitate October 4, 2001 Chapter 5. Page 3 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report a series of retaining walls both along the slope west of the houses, and along Gellert Boulevard east of the houses. ii. Impact Analysis (1) Land Use and Public Policy The 74-Unit Alternative would have a similar impact to land use and public policy as the proposed project. Specifically, the 74-Unit Alternative would require a similar zoning change from commercial to residential. Additionally, both the 74-Unit Alternative and the proposed project would be equally consistent with the General Plan, as amended. (2) Traffic The 74-Unit Alternative would have significant impacts to traffic since three of the intersections in the project are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS E, or lower. Neither the 74-Unit Alternative nor the proposed project would reduce the LOS at these or other project intersections, but both would increase delays at currently impacted intersections. The 74-Unit Alternative would cause a smaller increase in delay since it would generate less traffic than the proposed project. Therefore, although both the 74-Unit Alternative and the proposed project would have significant unavoidable impact to traffic, because the 74- UnitAlternative would result in less delays, it is considered better with regard to traffic impacts than the proposed project. (3) Visual Resources The 74- Unit alternative would have some visual impact since it would result in substantial development of a currently undeveloped parcel. Visual simulations of the 74-Unit Alternative are shown in Figures 38 though 4l . The viewpoints from which this alternative is shown are the same as those depicted in Figure 24 on page 84 in Chapter 4.3. The intensity of the visual impact would be less than the visual impact of the proposed project since the buildings would be smaller and less imposing from the selected viewpoints. A greater amount of open space would be visible above the roofs of the buildings. The 74-Unit Alternative would also have less of an impact on views from the top of the slope, since the buildings would be shorter. The big-box retail centers east of Gellert and the flatland residential areas of South San Francisco would all remain visible over the roofs of the houses. Thus, the 74-Unit Alternative may result in less restriction of view. Therefore, the 74-Unit Alternative is considered superior to the proposed project with regard to visual impacts. (4) Biology The 74-Unit Alternativetyould have a similar overall footprint to the proposed project, therefore a similar impact to site vegetation would occur as a result of the development of this alternative. Since the proposed project site does not contain significant biological resources, no impact would occur as a result of the development of the site. Therefore the 74-UnitAlternative and the proposed project are considered to have equal impacts on biological resources. October 4, 2001 Chapter 5. Page 4 Marbella Housing Subdivision (5) Hazardous Materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Since the proposed project is not thought to contain hazardous materials, and is not located in the vicinity of emitors of hazardous materials, development of the proposed project site would not have an impact with regard to hazardous materials. Development of the 74-Unit Alternative would not differ from the 280 unit project.-unit Site plan in this regard, so the impacts of the projects are the same. October 4, 2001 Chapter 5. Page 5 ,~~- t v , )~, i2.: i I~j: ~ j ~~ ~` Z n,' ! i ~ ~ 7.~ ;, ~ -• ' ....,~ h ~1 ~ MARBELLA , ~ I W i`I ~~ ` I. !i ~r±-- ! DRIVE lii t ~ _ ~ 1{{ 1 ' '' ~-V' ~ ,-:, s `~' ~ ,~` ~ ~~ ~~ 7 11! ~ O i ~, ~; I a a- r m r ~ 'i°n, ~: - G ~~ '. L~~ ~~ {} I t `i \~ b ~ r ~ ~t It J +~ r ~ ' ~~~` r ~~ai~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ $~~' i ~eq~, I~1{ J1i ~ 1 ~1'~ 'ly ~ i - i t +1 a ~ I+ FL r ~Ir~p~~k ' r I~ ! - i i ~~ Imo' ,~'.~'_ _ ~~ Ci ~ Cf' ~` - § i ~~_ I fi a~~.; ~ ~ ~~~ 1` ~ti.~ ~,~ ~ = - ,Q~ ._ , i = ~- ~ f ~~ - r ° ('~ ~ i t_ _ I Ju, I \1 ,~ - ,t it A~A il.~ ~ J ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ c, ~ t r _ ,~,.- 't },` rn. ~~ ~ ~ ~ I' '}. a O I di ' r ~~' '1 •'1 ~> `I ~ i6i r R~ r} a .t ~ ~ ~ii a ,'~ `, F ~ ~ ~~ . ~.~~A :.~ ~ ~ ~ ! ;~ = 1 t N - _ _ ~' ~~~ I i.( IO __ ,pig I ~ : ~ ;,. ~ ti J~I'i - M Z w z ~ Q ~ ~ O _ ..I ~ ~ w ~ a Q ~ ~ L7 W Z o ~- ti n. ~ m Q Q W ~ n- V F- `~ ~ Vf J l7 J ca zQ Z y ~ Q ~ > Z J Z ~ ~ = z O Z ~ J a ^ J W Z W m w ~ F a° ~ E~ } V O LL Q Z J W a R ~ _ ~.`'~ a O D^ ~ DD ~` ,1-~_I/ M/L • - ~ `. '= :~-. ~ o a ~ ~ ~ _ ~r,7 l~ '• .+,.ff J - ~ Q W s ,_: s ~ Z Z V •! WSW N N ~ N X W ~ W W ~ > ~ O O n W .~ V LL Z W O~ F- I- Q W W V1 F" W -~ ~Q a~ 3z W Q LL 0 Z '"' H Z W W a W d' J Q Z H u W Z O `~ _o y a. ~ V LC ~ ~ ti~ zQ y~ ~~ =z QO J ~ J W m w Q ~ F ~ U O Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report f. Noise The 74-Unit Alternative would incorporate measures to prevent construction-related noise impacts as outlined in this EIR. It would also include measures to mitigate noise impacts as a result of the site's proximity to the San Francisco International Airport. These impacts and mitigation measures would be essentially equivalent to the impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Since all noise impacts could be mitigated to aless-than-significant level, the 74-Unit Alternative would have no more or less of an impact than the proposed project. g. Geology and Seismicity Potentially significant impacts regarding slope stability, elevated ground water levels, regional seismic activity and landslide activity are generally similar for any type of construction. Thus the impacts resulting from the 74-Unit Alternative would be equal to those resulting from the proposed project. 3. Ability to Meet Project Objectives The 74-Unit Alternative would meet a portion of the project objectives since it would provide housing which is aesthetically matched to the surrounding residential area and would preserve views for the residents west of the proposed project site. However, this alternative would not meet the project object of providing 280 housing units, would provide no affordable housing units and would not further the General Plan policies of maximizing development on the site since it is glower-density alternative. October 4, 2001 Chapter 5, Page 7 Marbella Housing Subdivision This page left intentionally blank Draft Environmental Impact Report October 4, 2001 Chapter 5, Page S ,~ _. ~~ ~ ~ ' ' Y ~ ~ ~~ 4~ ~ t « Y c~ lanA ~r ~ 2 ..11~ J ~, ~, . '"~ ! ~; 4 , " i F, ~ '~ k ~, ~~ ~~ ~.~ " 4.'~J~~k ~ _ . f k »X ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Z ~- GC W J Q H Z n L. r Z O a 3 Z ~ O ~ _ O H ~ >_ ~ O ~ m u a ~~ ,~ ~ v J Z Q rn ~ ~ Z w 0 ~ z J O J > WZ fd w ~ Q cQ W N U LL ~:~;` ` ~ _,. ~ ,'1; ps ~_ ~ o' ~" ~: ;: ~w is ~ ~, a ~ ~ `~ ~ ~, I ~'~~ f., - ,? '~ ~~. }t 5 ~a p ~aOF f r~ q- ~ _t ~ {{~ ~a ~~ i • E~ ~ W M F ~ a Z ~ ~ W J Q H Z er A LN r Z a W Z ~' O~ to O ~ ~ ~ ~ m U ~ d INw ~ v J ZQ a~ Z O~ xz Qo ~~ J W Z m w a° N U ,_~.k~. ~ Y qq ~M1 ~ . ~ ~. 7 i ' Y " :i , i `*" . S: - ~ 5 ~. ~A~, T { n~ p. d' W W F- Q Z W J Q Z d' M Z O a 3 Z ~ O ~ _O a~ >_~ c~ m U ~ a Iy Z v J Z Q H ~ ~Z w ~ ~ IZ QO J ~ J > W Z m w Q ~ E N U O t"TM T? ~= ~,; ~ ~ ~ .~ is ~f ~_ ~ F ~,w; ~pp 1 .:e. y ! N . ~ 7 ~;ti . 'f3, .:. ~ f '~ ~ 7i' 7 ,~~ 3~`~ f ~~` ~' ~ a d:,. ~e d~ ~ 7+ C {1 ~ " ' 3 ~ ~ - ,~,, ~~°~ .: i „ ~ W Z H ~ ~ Q ~ f' H w ~ a ~ ~ ~ Z _ ~ 1L ~ V m Q ~ W a ~ m~ J l7 J Q ZQ to ~ F- > z Z ~ ~ ~ xz Qo ~ J . J > W Z ~ m w ~ Q ~ L ~ N Z U O O a 3 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmentally Superior Alternative The No Project Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative since it would preserve the undeveloped site as open space and have the fewest impacts to traffic, noise, hydrology and public services. Preservation of the status quo generally creates the fewest environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative fails to meet the objective of providing much-needed housing. CEQA requires that if the No Project Alternative is found to be the environmentally superior alternative, the remaining alternatives must be evaluated to determine the environmentally superior of the remaining alternatives. The next most environmentally superior alternative is the proposed 74-Unit Alternative. However, this alternative would not meet project objectives of providing much needed affordable housing. All development alternatives would have similar mitigable impacts with respect to noise, hydrology, geology and seismicity, air quality and water and wastewater services. Both the proposed project and the alternatives would result in significant unavoidable impacts with respect to traffic. Both the proposed project and the alternatives would have similar visual impacts. While the degree of significance of visual impacts is based on qualitative aesthetic judgement, the 74-Unit Alternative offers the least amount of massing on the site and therefore impacts the smallest amount of distant views from the top of the slope. October 4, 2001 Chapter 5. Page 17 Marbella Housing Subdivision 6 CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions Draft Environmental Impact Report As required by CEQA, this chapter provides an overview of the impacts of the proposed project based on the technical topical analyses. The topics covered in this chapter include growth inducement; cumulative impacts; unavoidable significant effects; significant irreversible changes; short-term uses versus long-term productivity; and impacts not found to be significant. Amore detailed analysis of the impacts the project would have on the environment is provided in Chapter 4: Environmental Evaluation. a. Growth Inducement A project is considered to be growth-inducing if it fosters economic or population growth beyond the boundaries of the project site. Typical growth inducements might be the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously unserved or under served area or the removal of major boundaries to development. The proposed project site is one of the few remaining undeveloped pieces of land in the City of South San Francisco. The project would not induce growth beyond the limits of the project site because the site is completely surrounded by property that has already been developed. Consequently the project would not spur any other development around it. b. Cumulative Impacts CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the potential cumulative impacts that could result from a proposed project in conjunction with other projects in the vicinity. Such impacts can occur when two or more individual effects either together create a considerable environmental impact or compound other environmental consequences. The project site is one of few remaining vacant parcels in the City of South San Francisco~and in adjacent Daly City. In fact, there are very few other potential development sites in the area. It is unlikely that future or approved development, either in South San Francisco or Daly City, would have significant environmental impacts when combined with the proposed project. The traffic analysis in this report considered cumulative impacts with respect to traffic by combining projected traffic volumes from other approved projects in the area with the project- generated traffic. The list of approved projects included two senior housing projects, four single- family detached housing developments totaling 121 units, a 50-unit condominium complex, an office development and a church and school expansion all scattered throughout Daly City, Pacifica October 4, 2001 Chapter 6. Page 1 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report and the City of South San Francisco. The traffic analysis concluded that the project, combined with these approved projects, would not have a significant cumulative traffic impact. Although the proposed project would have noise impacts, these impacts would be mitigated through soundproofing measures to a level of insignificnce. These impacts would be impacts to the project, rather than being impacts which result from the project. Other approved projects which fall in the noise insulation retrofit area would also be evaluated for noise impacts to those individual projects. There would be no combined impact from the individual projects. The proposed project would have construction-related noise impacts as would the other approved projects in the area. These impacts would be mitigated through adherence to the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance and would be considered temporary and less-than-significant. The geologic and seismic impacts that would result from development on the proposed project site are related to existing geologic and seismic conditions such as the presence of fault lines. The proposed project itself does not have significant impacts on site geology, therefore it would not have impacts when combined with other approved projects in the area. As indicated in the Initial Study, Appendix A and further discussed in Chapter 4 of this EIR, the proposed project would not cause any impacts with respect to biological resources, hazardous materials, air quality, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, public services and utilities, recreation facilities, agricultural, cultural and mineral resources. Consequently, there would be no impacts related to these issues that could combine with potential impacts from other projects in the area. No other cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the combination of the proposed project and the other approved projects in the vicinity. c. Unavoidable Significant Impacts Almost all of the potential impacts from the proposed project are either less-than-significant, or could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by the implementation of mitigation measures described in Chapter 4. The exception to this are impacts to local roadway traffic which are unavoidable significant impacts. The unavoidable significant impact identified in this EIR is as follows: Impact TRAFFIC-1: The intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the existing background conditions, and would remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The addition of project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service, since it is already at LOS F. However, it would result in a substantial increase in the average delay per vehicle, which constitutes a significant impact. Signalization at Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center driveway is not recommended October 4, 2001 Chapter 6. Page 2 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report due to its proximity to the Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard/McDonald's Driveway intersections. A third signal would have a negative impact for traffic flows along Gellert Boulevard. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. d. Signij~cant Irreversible Changes CEQA requires that EIRs assess whether a project will result in significant irreversible changes to the environment. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of irreversible changes that should be considered, as further detailed below. i. Changes in Land Use which Commit Future Generations The proposed project would commit future generations to use the proposed project site for residences. Once the proposed project is developed it is unlikely to be economically feasible or desirable to change to a significantly different land use for several decades. However, this is not considered to be adverse, since the site is currently graded and not in its natural state. Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents ii. No significant environmental damage, such as the accidental spill or explosion of hazardous material, is anticipated as a result of development of the proposed project site. This is because the project does not involve the use or transport of unusual hazardous materials. iii. Consumption of Natural Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes issues related to increased energy consumption, conservation of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. The proposed project will require additional electric and gas service, and it will require resources for construction. However, it is anticipated that these additional services will be provided with no impact to the service providers and without the need for addition staff or facilities. Additionally, the property is not agricultural land, nor does it provide access to a mining reserve. e. Impacts Found Not to Be Significant CEQA allows environmental issues for which there is no likelihood of an impact to be "scoped out" during the EIR scoping process and not covered in an EIR. This section summarizes previous findings regarding the topics with were "scoped out" and are not considered further in this EIR: The scoping is a result of the findings contained in the Initial Study (Appendix A). ~ Air Quality. Air quality impacts from the proposed project would only be encountered during the construction phase of the proposed project. These impacts would be mitigated through the incorporation of standard construction management practices as required by October 4, 2001 Chapter 6, Page 3 Marbella Housing Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The proposed project would not exceed thresholds triggering operational air quality review promulgated by BAAQMD. ~ Hydrology and Water Quality. Even though the development of the proposed project requires significant grading, it would not significantly change the on-site hydrologic conditions. ~ Population and Housing. The proposed project would provide 280 residential units. Housing is currently in short supply and high demand in this region, so this would result in a beneficial, not a negative, environmental impact. ~ Public Services and Utilities. All of the public service providers that would serve the proposed project site, including police, fire and public schools, have indicated that the proposed project could be served without the need for additional staff or facilities. Specifically, Pat Logis of the South San Francisco Unified School District was contacted on December 15, 2000, regarding the addition of 280 residential units. School officials indicated that the projected increase in population, based on the market value of the units, could be easily accommodated by existing facilities. This is consistent with the South San Francisco Unified School District's Five Year Plan, prepared in 1997, that sets forth the projected growth and capacity within the district and forecasts declining enrollment through 2001. The project sponsor will be required to pay state mandated School Facilities Fees. ~ Recreational Facilities. The proposed project site is located in an area which is well served by recreational facilities and the proposed project would not significantly increase demand for these resources relative to the available supply. Moreover, the project sponsor is required to pay approximately $1.6 million dollars in Park - in -Lieu fees to provide additional recreational opportunities for residents of the project. ~ Mineral Resources. The proposed project site has been extensively graded and disturbed and does not contain subsurface mineral resources. ~ Agricultural Resources. Although the proposed project site is undeveloped, it is extremely steep and isolated from other undeveloped lands. Therefore, it is not considered to be an agricultural resource. ~ Cultural Resources. No known or visible cultural resources exist on the site. Since the site is an artificial cut slope which has been extensively disturbed, it is highly unlikely that any subsurface cultural resources exist on the site. October 4, 2001 Chapter 6, Page 4 Marbella Housing Subdivision 7 Report Preparation This report was originally prepared by: Design, Community & Environment (DC&E) 1600 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 222 Berkeley, CA 94709 Tel: (510) 848-3815 David Early, Principal-in-Charge Rachel Schuett, Associate Wendy Swenson, Project Urban Designer Joanna Jansen, Planner Sara Press, Planner Subconsultants on the team were: DKS Associates, traffic and circulation Environmental Collaborative, biological resources Viz f/x, visual simulations Final Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by: City of South San Francisco, Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Tel: (650) 877-8535 Draft Environmental Impact Report October 4, tool Chapter 7 Page 1