The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutECR AddendumADDENDUM O THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT $ #; # rz Allison Knapp Wollam 1"lanning and Environmental Consulting CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-24 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2-1-71 Aesthetics 2-2 Agricultural Resources 2-5 it Quality 2-6 Biological Resources 2-29 Cultural Resources 2-32 Geology and Soils 2-34 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2-39 Hydrology and Water Quality 2-43 Land Use and Planning 2-48 Mineral Resources 2-52 Noise 2-53 Public Services 2-60 Recreation 2-61 Transportation and Traffic 2-63 Utilities and Service Systems 2-66 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2-70 Findings 3-1 Environmental Determination 3-4 8 lWYEVU Rau A south-east corner design element, at the Mission Road and McLellan Drive intersection, would add a d-drd-stoq residential loft and at this one area the WA-16W.- grade. The height of the remaining portions of the building would be 35 feet. Residential units would include a mix of one-story one- to three-bedroom units and two two-story four-bedroom units comprising the south-east comer unit, referenced above as a design element. The bedroom mix would include two one-bedroom units; 14 two-bedroom units; two three-bedroom units; and two four-bedroom units. 1 The Initial Study includes office use as part of the Project in the event that in the future the applicant or successor apply for a conditional use permit to include office use on the ground floor. Requested Entitlements PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2 of 24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 3 of 24 Therefore, the Project proposes a TNT Land Use and Zoning Map (Map TN'-01) amendment to Fligh Density Residential with the Commercial overlay to construct 20 units • hous and 5 2010 s e feet of retail commercial on the 0.41 acre sl a' 4^1 $$ l oss Other Plan Considerations Common With and Outside the Project Area-South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment-2010 Although the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (S/ECRGPA) a-tea is predominately outside the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Area, a discussion of PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 4 of 24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 5 of 24 S AU`, NN NOT IN PROJECT AREA FIGURE 1.1 EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1 of 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 6 of 24 \�\ WILLOW GARDENS NEIGHBORHOOD FIGURE 1.1 EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 2 of 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 7 of 24 b O � yy �... -# a Si#e NzbegxfsE -�� and e , L,azt�t s Utear '> LOW (r+�ir ��i►� �1 Naar Acres Afid A o r taz;` ; 'A ; ved Plan Aprapec Pta ".:Auel�eleC'I2rt . �.. 1`hideAnten ed.� , ite 1 2.3 - Motel and gas t Nei or oo - serving 25,000 sq. retai o to No ge to existing an Wye Motel station retail co °al existing Ian use use O z Site 2 15.0 Vacant esidentia @ 50 147,000 sq. ft. 147, sq. ff. — Co stco® acy's/ units /acre2 Costc Costco 16 s 16 - pump gas station station r" 7.0 Vacant Anwndmert Residential @ 50 263 apt. units Residential @ 30 multi -fa ° units /acre units /acre + 25% residential units density density bonus Planned 171,500 sq. ft. conununitv Conunercial @ 1.5 co FAR 171, 0 sq. ft. office Site 3 0.75 Vacant C ercial 26,000 sq. ft. esidena @ 30 21 mu ti- ami y si entia Cuneo Property al units /acre + 2 5% units (7, (1 /2 office, density bonus 1/2 sho pin center Corninercial @ 1.5 18,400 sq. ft. shopping ctr.; 0 FAR 18,400 sq. ft. office Site 4 31.1 esi entia ° esi Residential 25 174 sin e- a under g Y e i - - 179 sing e- y ts® �., McLellan construction units /acre units Density Residential taw omen Nursery t nhomes {y p 3 City ark City ark Site 5 2.5 Vacant t ixe Use 1 apt. units; ixe se 1 mu ti- a ° BART Station 50,000 sq. ft. residential units ,a shopping ter 122,500 sq. ft. retail I V arty Nine A&es Land, Lt e O Site 6 2.06 Medical, Cn El Camino dental, Offices business offices Cn Site — 7 - 5.0 Days Inn Harmonious two residential Holdings/ Kaiser Medical is Lumber Yard -1 0 Z tv Site Days Inn — rite 9 Kaiser Medical Site S.F. Water Department (7 Site 11 - County Government 0 Center I 4 Site 12 County Goven Center 11 Site 73 Oak Avenue CD o I I MW 0=— (Net Change +8,•00 sq'- ft. retail)8 It PO O m _ - _ Ntb� S ., and AIatiie �9.cres Trove _; y Site 23 9.3 212 m ti- Addition N/A N_ A Re a i itation� 0 Willow family multi- family Gardens residential residential units units Net Change: , 8 multi- family units) TOTAL Multi- Family Residential 1,240 units 757 units r O Cite .. 189,9011 a re #eet., > Commercial /Retail /Shopping 88,000 sq.-ft. 443,800 square feet Z 061 y - -_ a � �� l Notes: 1. Calculation of maximum residential units and commercial square footage assumes 75% building coverage and 25% streets,4andscaping/parking area, except as noted below. 2. Approval of the development of a Costco and gas station on the Ma s siteweret into effect with a March 7, 2000 voter referendum. Because the O approved, t development numb shown in this roue are not included in the totals. project was previously z 3. The Greenridge project was recently completed and is now occupied; the Promenade pro ect is currently tinder construction and is expected to be complete by late 2000. Development on the McLellan Nursery site is not included in the total because the identified projects were previously approved. to 4. Although maximum buildout potential is higher, the 96 -unit condo complex is relatively new and would not change under the Existing or Amended Redevelopment Plan. Z ►-+ 5. Some portions of County Government Center site are outside the existing Redevelopment Project Area. 6. Currently 32 single - family units are proposed for this site. Maximum buildout potential is shown in the table. �. 7. Currently, 40 units of senior housing are proposed for this site, as allowed by General Plan Housing Element Policy 3A. �+ 8. Only the net change in square tage /units is included in the total for the El Camino Real Commercial Frontage and Willow Gardens sites. M 9. Multi family residential inclu es apartments and condominiums. l� 41 t- o , o Emu= MMUM iiiIi-I Implementation • the City's General Plan, TXT and ECRRP has resulted in transportation improvements and land use development in the Project area. Transportation and circulation .improvements identified in the Plans that have been completed since 2000 are the: 0 =- * South San Francisco BART station construction; and Centennial Way Trail (2.85 miles) from. San Bruno BART Station to South San Francisco BART Statio . IMNIRM11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 13 of 24 I ousing units, 294,000 square feet of community commercial and 171,500 square feet • office for this combined site. Site 4. • This site is developed with 179 single-family units, 34 townhomes and open space. The 2000 EC R analyzed the same development assumptions that are built. Site 14. This site, known as Oak Farms, was redeveloped with 32 single-family residential units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed 72 multi-family residential units. Subsequently an application was entitled to permit 32 single-family units. Site 15- This site known as Chestnut Creek was developed with 40 units of seni housing subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR analysis of 28multi-fainily units. i PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 14 of 24 family housing units that were not envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR and 5,000 square feet of the 8,900 square feet of commercial land use that was envisioned in 2000 ECREIR. The S /ECRGPA includes this site in the planned intensification of commercial and residential land use and permits a commercial 1.5 FAR and up to 80 dwelling units per acre. A negative declaration tiering from the S /ECRGPzk EIR was approved for the NIid -Pen project. The following Table L2 summarizes the changes in development assumptions subsequent to the 2000 ECRRP amendment as well as the two that are currently under review-. The sites identified are those where development differs from that analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. Including the Mid -Pen and Project site, 165 additional residential units have been or are anticipated to be constructed, 305,000 square feet less commercial and 189,400 square feet less office has been developed. TABLE 1.2 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ON SITES REDEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 2000 ECREIR DEVELOPED SITES SITE RESIDENTIAL RETAIL OFFICE 2 and 5 +55 - 293,000 - 171,500 7 +29 14 -40 15 +12 PENDING ENTITLEMENT REVIEW 3 PROJECT -1 - 12,300 - 18,400 21 +109 /1/ CHANGE +165 - 305,200 - 189,400 ; '1/ The Mid -Pen Project would include 5,000 of the 8,900 square feet of commercial intensification on the collective parcels known as Site 21. Build -out of the Dlid -Pen parcel does not obiiate, but actually enhances, the opportunit) to realize the ECRRP amendment development scenario on the remaining parcels. The development opportunity remains outstanding and as such the retail /office component is not counted as a loss or gain. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page .15 of 24 1.2 LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 1.3 CITY • SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS As a matter of law, the Project is required to compl� vith federal, state and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of building permit issuance or a building or grading permit will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. As such, these requirements are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 16 of 24 "ORT-llp= PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 1 7 of 24 ULM= a. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to .maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Pave, apply water three dines daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. f. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h. Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j. Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. k. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 1. Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. tn. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. n. Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer-recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 18 of 24 • Diesel powered equipment shall not • left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQN1D n - des. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 19 of 24 professional of record is required to sign all. project drawings and the City's geotechmical consultant proNides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the Citi. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement. MMM= New rules for auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and uncovered parking begin on December 1, 2011. At that time, projectsthat create and/or replace 5,000 square feet • more • impen-ious surface related to auto service facilities'. retail gasoline 2 Auto service facilities, described by the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 20 of 24 The measures address pollution control and management tnechanistns for contractor act1xqt1es,_e.g. structure construction, material dcliy= and ernployee and subcontractor training. Stortnwater pollution prevention measures also affec', site development and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Typical storm water quality protectionrneasures include: • 7539: Specialized automotive repair such as fuel sen (carburetor repair), brake relining, front-end and wheel alignment, and radiator repair. 3 Restaurants described by SIC code 5812: Retail sale of prepared food and drinks for on-premise or immediate consumption. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 21 of 24 e, Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system. f Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer sand strips before discharge to the City's storm drain system. a. Identi� all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located neat construction sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow. b. Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water before the drain inlets. c. Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas. • a - so . •■ -• - --- • ill 1111 111iiiiiijil pillill! !I k. Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 22 of 24 1. Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather. .tn. Use terracing to prevent erosion. n. Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather season, October 15 to April 15 th . o. Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such activities that are controlled and away from water courses and perform major maintenance off-site or in designated areas only. p. Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule. q. Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers' instructions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 23 of 24 Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for conunetcial, office and retail is 45 dBA, L ey echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 24 of 24 1309 MISISON ROAD- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1 2.1 AESTHETICS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact MitL&ation 1. AESTHETICS — Would the Project: a) Hare a substantial adverse effect on a scenic x Vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? EA X Q Wz= - .'-"AGE 2-2 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY the distance ate visual landmarks. Nfuch of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles 'in 'a north-south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. The Project would be located in an area of the City that has undergone a dramatic redevelopment surge as a result of the City's proactive Transit Village and El Camino Redevelopment Plan activities. The area contains pedestrian and transit friendly high densiti residential and con-imercial land uses vith articulating facades, open space areas and seating areas. The Project would construct a mined use commercial and residential project in an area developei with and planned for such use. The proposed maximum height is 50 feet with the majority of the building at or below 35 feet. The Project site is not located within or nearby a scenic vista or scenic corridor (2000 ECREIR, 1999 General Plan, and General Plan Background Report). a) Scenic Vistas 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY ��PAGE 2-3 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in the obstruction of a formally designated public Vista (General Plan, Figure 2-4 Viewshed page 36). Additionally, the Project would not clearly conflict with an adopted planning polic; regarding scenic vistas. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes Signfcance Criteria- For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project-related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway). The Project would not be visible from a state scenic highway. The Project site does not contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. Therefore the Project would have no impact on scenic resources. c) Visual Character Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualit; of the site and its surroundings. The Project proposes landscaping, facade treatment, heights and parking that keeps with the vernacular of the neighborhood. The Project as a matter of law will be required to incorporate the considerations of the Design Review Board into the final design. Therefore the Project would have no impact on visual character. d) Light or Glare Significance Criteria. Project related creation of an; new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. PAGE 2-4 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY The Project site was graded as part of the BART expansion to South San Francisco. The 2000 ECREIR identified agricultural uses only within the area of Grand and Chestnut Avenues and certain greenhouses along El Camino Real south of the Project site; not the Project site. 30mu�� Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant en-6roninental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act contract, or involve any environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses. • Prime Farmlands, 'LTnique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at, or around, the Project site. No part of the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract and no yart of the Pto,;ect site or surrounding area is zoned for Francisco General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, TVP and ECRRP). Therefore, the Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-9 Finding: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The Projec; site is not planned or zoned for agricultural use and is not in agricultural use. The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any agricultural uses • impacts associated with development on the Project site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. • 171 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? lu� ME. TIMM - 1art ic x7pacts • a V. 0 17 1clan't'n W f The Project retail component was reduced in size 2 The BAAQMD Board approved and adopted new revised CE.QA Air.Quak* Guidelines on June 2, 201 PAGE 2-6 1309 MISSION ROAD— INMAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION mlomwa• 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-7 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing GCC. GCC is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global w armin g and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased GHG emissions and long term global temperature increases. Potential global w armin g impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat_ days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely- to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity-. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth's temperature and emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and motor vehicles, have elevated the concentration of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHG emissions has contributed to GCC as an increase in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs include all of the following gases; carbon dioxide (CCI ), methane (CH nitrous oxide (N hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons , nitrogen trifluroide (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (California Health and Safety Code section 38505(8)). CO is the reference gas for climate change because it gets the most attention and is considered the most important GHG. To account for the v.-arming potential of GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO equivalents (CO The effects of GHG emission sources (i.e., individual projects) are reported in metric tons per year of CO California and Bay Area GHG Emissions GHG emissions contributing to GCC are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial /manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.' The State of California alone produces about 2% of the entire world's GHG emissions, with major emitting sources here including fossil fuel consumption from transportation (41 %), industry (23 0 /6), electricity- production (20 0 /6), and agricultural and forestry (8 %). The State of California is looking at options and opportunities for drastically reducing GHG emissions with the hope of thereby delaying, mitigating, or preventing at least some of the anticipated impacts of GCC on California communities. In 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Nfanagement District (BAAQNID) completed a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the year 2007. According to that inventory, 102 million metric tons of CO were emitted in the Bay Area that year.' Air QuaW Table 1 shows the emissions breakdown by pollutant. 3 California Energy Commission (CEC). California's Major Sources of Energy. http: / /'energyalmanac.ca.gov, overview energ;•_sources.html, 2008. 4 Bay Area Air Quality- Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory of BayArea Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2008. "'AGE 2-8 1309 ROAD— AIR QUALITY TABLE 1 2II' BAY AREACO2e EMISSIONS BY POLLUTANT Pollutant Percentage CO2e ('Million Marie To ns /Year) Carbon Dioxide 91.4 93.7 Methane 2.4 2.5 Nitrous Oxide 2.2 2.3 HFC,PFC,SF6 3.9 4.0 Total 100 102.6 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. The Bay Area's transportation sector contributes 40 0 //o of theCO2e GHG emissions, followed by industrial and commercial sources (34 0 /6), electricity and co-generation (15 0 /6), residential fuel usage (7 9 /6), off-road equipment (3 0 /6), and agriculture and f g (1 9 /6). Bay Area emissions by sector are illustrated in Air Qua&y Chart 1. Absent policy changes, Bay Area GHG emissions are expected to grow at a rate of 1.4% a year due to population growth and economic expansion.' Economic activity variations and the fraction of electric power generation in the region will cause year-to-year fluctuations in the emissions trends. A-ir QuaNty Chw2shows the emission trends by major sources for the period of 1990 to 2029. am 1&10A_kTjlb*1-%N ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-9 AIR QUALITY CHART I B§X,#JeE§— "jr EEWWALSE vsA-PFoacRuT �)F Xx,#,F, TS-SIA109 WNSECTICV # Rcsldenda� — Fud U&tge Off-Road r/4 rA Equipmenc 3% Source: Bly Area Air Quality Mana.Vement 11 strict, 201. AIR QUALITY CHART 2 BAY AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EmisSIONs TRENDS BY SECTOT 160 .2 1.10 M E U11 120 a 100 Cr w N 80 60 �Lj 40 0 0 M 19 1993 199 1999 2:002 2005 2008 ?011 2014 2017 2107,10 2023 2026 2029 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. 1114 LT, 16 M ki I Oei a AN ! I M E M] UM EMMEMEMM Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South San Francisco AIR QUALITY TABLE 2 Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 200 City of South San Francisco/ ICLEI, 2009 130• MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-11 2005 GHG Emissions GHG Emissions Sector' (CO2e) (10 CO2e) Residential 70,059 13% Electricity 22,258 4% Natural Gas 47,801 9% Commercial/Industrial 185,240 35% Electricity 80,723 15% Natural Gas 104,517 20% Transportation 240,257 46% Ci_* Roads (Non-Highway) .87,406 17% State Highways 152,851 29% WaSte2 31,210 6% Solid Waste 31,210 6% Total 526,766 100% GHG Emissions Per Capita 8.5 Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQ1NJD-ICLEI "Vorkshop, December 6, 2007. 2. EPA WARM Model was used. Model accessed: httiD://www.el3a. go v/climatechangg, - " For .h , %�cd/v , astezcalculators,\K May 2009. Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 200 City of South San Francisco/ ICLEI, 2009 130• MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-11 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 0323033 =. �. C =l I Global Change Research Act (1990) (15 United States Code Sections 2921 et seal ?" * ROA Enemy Policy Act of 2005 �mlljm MN&Wx Federal Fuel Efficieng_- Standards In mid-Alay 2009, President Barack Obarna ordered vehicle makers to increase mileage standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than required by law. The nationwide fuel-economy standards would be phased in beginning in 2012. Rules are to be finalized by the end of Nfarch 2010. Carmakers had wanted a national standard, saying that meeting a quilt of state standards would be too difficu The EPA in June 2009 approved California's rules to regulate GHG emissions from cars and light trucks, putting the standards into effect immediately for much of the nation and reversing a Bush administration policy. California had urged the EPA to allow the state's rules to go into effect immediate1v arguing that the len&hv federal rulemakin_a process would delav action that could begin 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-12 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST immediately. California's rules apply beginning with the sale of 2009 model year cars, and extend to much of the nation, since 13 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted the California standard. In 2012, companies may comply with the national standard in place of the state standard. California Public Utilities Commission As a public utility that provides electricity and natural gas to the City, PG &E is under the jurisdiction of the CPUC. PG &E provides service in accordance within the policies and extensions rules on file with the CPUC. Senate Bill 1771 Sher (Chapter 1018, Statutes of 2000? SB 1771 requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare an inventory of the state's GHG emissions, to study data on GHG, and to provide government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing GHG emissions. It also established the California Climate Action Registry to serve as a certifying agency- for companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG emissions for possible fixture trading systems. State of California Integrated Energy Policy �2002� The CEC adopts and transmits to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings biannually. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389 in 2002. The legislation reconstituted the state's responsibility to develop an integrated energy plan for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, known as the Energy Report. The CEC adopted the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy during a Special Business Nfeeting on November 12, 2003. The 2004 Update to the Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy- Commission on November 3, 2004. The 2005 Integrated Energy- Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 21, 2005. The plan calls for the state to assist in. the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and. energy- costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicle and addressing their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VI\IT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access. Assembly- Bill 1493 (Chapter 200 Statutes of 2002) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5 Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) amended California Health & Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 requiring the California _kit Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt, by januar; 1, 2005, re gulations that achieve maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles, f"AGE 2-14 13 09 MISSION ROAD— light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California. The regulations apply to motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 or later model year. Senate Bill 1078 Sher (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2QU2 The Sher bill established a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 1% per year until they have attained a portfolio of 20% renewable resources by 2010. Executive Order S-20-04, signed on July 27, 2004, requires that the State commit to aggressive action to reduce state building electricity use, and more specificall, that State agencies, departments, and other entities take measures to reduce energy use by 20% by 2015. In addition, the Order requires that the CEC increase energy efficiency standards by 20% by 2015, compared to the 2003 Titles 20 and 24 standards. 130• MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1P CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Executive Order S-3-05 (Gov. Schwarzenegger. Tune 2005� wff:Wsl AMN!"Alm I I off ra vvidlTs California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32 ( Cahf Health & Safety Code Sections 38500 et seq.) PAGE 2-16 131 9 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 LIST OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES BY SECTOR 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -17 G Reductions (Annual Measure Million Metric. No. Measure Description Tons CO.,e) H Transportat T -1 Pavley I and II — Light Duty- Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 31.7 Standards T -2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Early Action) 15 T -3' Regional Transportation- Related Greenhouse Gas Targets 5 T -4 Vehicle Efficiency- Measures 4.5 T -5 Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action) 0.2 T -6 Goods Movement Efficiency Measures. 3.5 • Ship Electrification at Ports • System-Wide Efficiency- Improvements T -7 Heavy -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction 0.93 Measure — Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action) T -8 Medium- and Heavy-Duty '\T chicle Hybridization 0.5 T -9 High Speed Rail 1 Electricity and Natural Gas E -1 Energy Efficiency (32,000 GWh of Reduced Demand) 15.2 • Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs • More Stringent Building & Appliance Standards Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs E -2 Increase Combined Heat and Power Use by 30,000 GWh 6.7 (Net reductions include avoided transmission line loss) E -3 Renewables Portfolio Standard (33 by 2020) 21.3 E -4 Million Solar Roofs (including California Solar Initiative, 2.1 New Solar Homes Partnership and solar programs of publicly- owned utilities) . Target of 3000 MW Total Installation by 2020 CR -1 Energy Efficiency (800 Million Therms Reduced 4.3 Consumptions) • Utility Energy Efficiency Programs • Building and Appliance Standards . Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs CR -2 Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal) 0.1 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -17 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2 -18 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY Redixc;tions Measure MI Olx, a trill . No. Measure Description` T Ong, Gre en Buildi e GB -Green Buildings 26 W Ater W -1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4t IX' -2 Water Recycling 0.3t W -3 Water System Energy- Efficiency 2.0t W -4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2t W -5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9t W -6 Public G oods Charge (Water) TBDt Industry I -1 Energy Efficiency and Co- Benefits Audits for Large TBD Industrial Sources I -2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I -3 GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I -4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 I -5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery 0.01 Regulations Recycli and Water Management RW -1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1 RW -2 Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane TBDt . Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture RW -3 High Recycling /Zero Water 9t • Commercial Recycling • Increase Production and Markets for Compost • Anaerobic Digestion • Extended Producer Responsibility- • Envi ronmenta lly P referable Purchasing Forests F -1 Sustainable Forest Target 5 ,High G1oba1 Warming Potenti (MV) Gas H -1 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction of 0.26 Refrigerant Emissions from Non - Professional Services (Discrete Early Action) PAGE 2 -18 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FI ]Reductions (Annual Measure Million Metric No Measure Description Tons C Z e) Green Buildings GB -1 Green Buildings 2 5 Water W -1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4t W -2 Water Recycling 0.3t W -3 Water System Energy= Efficiency 2.Ot W -4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2t W -5 Increase Renewable Energy- Production 0.9t W -6 Public Goods Charge (Water) TBDt Industry I -1 Energy Efficiency- and Co- Benefits Audits for Large TBD • A 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STU Industrial Sources I -2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I -3 GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I -4 Refiner; Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 I -5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refiner; 0.01 Regulations Recycling and Water Management RW -1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1 Rte' -2 Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane TBDt • Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture RW -3 High Recycling /Zero Water 9t • Commercial Recycling • Increase Production and Markets for Compost • Anaerobic Digestion • Extended Producer Responsibility • Environmentally Preferable Purchasin Forests F -1 Sustainable Forest Target 5 Nigh Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases H -1 motor `vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction of 0.26 Refrigerant Emissions from Non - Professional Services (Discrete Early Action) • A 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STU GHQ Reductions (A i 1 0 0a I M&asuw,' > Million Nfetiic� No Mea4ure Desciiption, Twig 00 7 4 4 H-2 SF in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor 0.3 _ A p plications (Discrete Early Action) H-3 Reduction of Perfluorocarbons in Semiconductor 0.15 1\1anufacturing (Discrete Early Action) j H-4 Limit High GVT Use in Consumer Products Discrete Early 0.25 Action (Adopted June 2008) H-5 High GWT Reductions from 1\1obile Sources 3.3 • Low GXXT Refrigerants for New 1\1otor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems • Air Conditioner Refrigerant Leak Test During Vehicle Smog Check • Refrigerant Recovery from Decommissioned Refrigerated Shipping Containers • Enforcement of Federal Ban on Refrigerant Release during Sen or Dismantling of Nlotor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems H-6 High GW Reductions from Stationary Sources 10.9 • High GWP Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Nianagement Program: • Refrigerant Tracking/Reporting/Repair Deposit Program • Specifications for Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Systems • Foam Recovery and Destruction Program • SF Leak Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Applications • Alternative Suppressants in Fire Protection Systems • Residential Refrigeration Early Retirement Program H-7 Nlitigation Fee on High GVT Gases 5 Agriculture A-1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1.0 This is not the SB 375 regional target. CARB will establish regional targets for each of California's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's) regions following the input of the regional targets advisory committee and a consultation process with MPO's and other stakeholders per SB 375 t GHG emission reduction estimates are not included in calculating the total reductions needed to meet the 2020 target 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST M�MlifoarrelfflM. R-SWINWHRM-1 FA Executive Order S-01-07 (Gov. Schwarzenegger. January 2007) Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007)( Calif. Public Resources Code Sections 21083.5 and 21097) PAGE 2-20 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY Executive Order S-14-08 (Gov. Schwarzenegger. November 20081 Executive Order 5- 14 -04, signed on November 17, 2008, mandates a RPS of 33% by 2020. ME= The City • South San Francisco does not currently have any adopted policies • plans regarding the reduction • GHG emissions. The City participated in a training workshop held • BA-kQMD and ICLEI • community GHG emission inventories in December 2007 to begin the process • 130• MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-21 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST conducting a government and community -wide GHG emissions baseline inventory. South San Francisco is currently in the process of completing the baseline inventory. Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.400 of the Municipal Code) South San Francisco's current Transportation Demand Management (TDNf) Ordinance states that for non - residential sites generating more than 100 daily trips, a minim of 2$% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use. For projects that seek a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus in accordance with the General Plan, 30% to 40% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use, depending on the type of development and requested FAR. The B_AAQN1D operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six criteria, pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the project site is in San Francisco on Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone, particulate matter in the form of PNI10 and P1112.5, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide). Air Qua& , Table 4 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by CARB for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately seven miles to the north - northeast of the Project site. The State 24 -hour PNI10 standard was exceeded three times in 2006 and two times in 2007. The federal 24 -hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded three times in 2006 and five times in 2007. No other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded during the three year period. ."AGE 2-22 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION QUALITY AIR AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY 2006 SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, II Pouutnt Standard ___Rays Stand iN xceeded 2006 n 2007 2008 Ozone State 1 -Hour 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8 -Hour 0 0 0 Ozone State 8 -Hour 0 0 0 P1\110 Federal 24 -Hour 0 0 0 PNI10 State 24 -Hour 3 2 0 PN12.5 Federal 24 -Hour 3 5 0 Carbon Monoxide State /Federal . 0 0 0 8-Hour Nitrogen Dioxide State 1 -Hour 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide State 24 -Hour 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (',DANI), 2010. The Bay Area is currently designated "nonattainment" for State and national (1 -hour and 8 -hour) ozone standards and for the State PNI10 and PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is expected to soon be officially designated nonattainment with respect to the national PM2.5 24 -hour standard. The Bay Area is designated "attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria: A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment, or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled (GfifT). The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the State particulate matter (PN110 and PN12.5) standards. The 2001 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan have been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues as required by federal and State air quality laws. Additionally, the BA -4QMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -23 Significame Critefiir. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BA,AQMD's operational mass emission rate thresholds or result M' a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for criteria pollutants). PAGE 2-24 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 1= AIR QUALITY TABLE 5 PR07ECT CONSTRUCTION (pounds per day) 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-25 Notes: Keter to .-ippendix A for all assumptions used as input to the URBENHS200 model. *B,),AQNM revised significance thresholds adopted by the BAAQMD Board on June 2, 2010. CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Ii qtr IMMIM AIR QUALITY TABLE 6 Fk-74 (pounds per day) "Area sources include natural gas combustion, landscaping, and architectural coating applications. Notes: Refer to Appendix AQ for all assumptions used as input to the URBEMIS2007 model. IIBA:kQNID revised significance thresholds adopted by the BAAQNff) Board on June 2, 2010. PAGE 2-26 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY OG NOx PM10 PM2.5 co Emission Sources Area Sources' 3.99 0.43 1.64 1.58 10.48 Alobi1e Sources 1.44 2.33 2.64 0.5 17.21 Total 5.43 2.76 4.28 2.08 27.69 Significance 54 54 82 54 — TluesholdS b Significant No No No No No I Impact? I "Area sources include natural gas combustion, landscaping, and architectural coating applications. Notes: Refer to Appendix AQ for all assumptions used as input to the URBEMIS2007 model. IIBA:kQNID revised significance thresholds adopted by the BAAQNff) Board on June 2, 2010. PAGE 2-26 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY f and g) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts 1309 MISSION ROAD— CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 (OPR, 2010). Therefore, checklist items f), and g) of this Initial Study, are OPR's new guidelines for analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. B. The amount of annual operational emissions generated by the Project. The Project's GHG emissions are compared to the BAAQMD's new operational significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per Year (mt/y). Projects with total emissions below 1,100 mt/y would be assumed not conflict with State's ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. The Project's emissions are also compared to the estimated GHG reduction state goal of 174 million metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020. C. The basic energy efficient; parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energmy efficient. D. Any potential conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. � I • .�ILTM PAGE 2-28 131 9 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY • Oil MOV.1 '001YArs3wil 0 JIL, I • • I WoR03 CAM • RMIRMIOTO 8 00 IaJl(rd C3412M 141 op a • �Jflflgwff Rf" I I i Will LY) 1 6-14*1 Lei il, I em MUNRO MI MEMEMENJOTITC�C, The Project would be located on a flat infill site surrounded by high density mixed use residential, comn-lercial, cemetery, school and transportation land uses. The site was previously graded, contains no wetlands or vegetation save for one shrub bush and weeds (site visit, General Plan Background Report). The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any biological issues in the redevelopment plan area. 7'AGE 2-30 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION South San Francisco Nfuniciml Code Section 13.30.020 Protected Tree Ordinance a-d) Habitat Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it were to substantially impact habitat, wetlands, migratory corridors and Waters of the United States as identified in 3.4 a-d, above. Suitable habitat requires the presence of vegetation for cover and food and a source of water. Suitable wildlife habitat is located approximately 0.75 miles north and northeast of the Project site in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-31 some weeds. The proximity of suitable habitat (San Bruno Mountain) within 0.75 miles of the Sill further renders the habitat value • the Project site as insignificant. The Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands orvildlife corridors. I 111111� 1111111 1111I!�J 11 1 11[11 1 Significance Criteiix The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation f• • ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communit; Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There are no Protected Trees on the site. There is no Habitat or Conservation Plan that governs the site, as the site does not contain habitat. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact gation Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the x significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? The 2000 ECREIR conducted a cultural resources reidew. The Project site was not found to have the potential for archaeological or culturalresources to be present. PAGE 2-32 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUEZ CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION a) Historic Resources Si gnificance Criteria.- The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it w to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. There are no historical resources or structures on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. b - d) Archaeological Resources Si - 1ro re gnificance Criteria. The Project would have a significant enlv' nmental =Pact if it we to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature', or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. The site is not known or suspected to contain cultural resources, based upon literature searches, previous EIR's and grading. Aloreover, the 34 foot deep borings and soil taken as part of the geotechnical study (Geotecbnical Investigation %4 Am Parcel, McLellan Drive and ,Wission Road, South San Francisco, California. April 6, 2009, Berloger Geotechnical Consultants) did not contain archaeological soils (i.e., shell bits associated with previous habitation associated with Native Americans). Finding: The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. There are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within 1.0 miles of the Project site based upon existing data including literature searches, soil borings taken to a depth of 34 feet and grading. The Project would have a no impact on cultural resources. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-33 MUM Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant wwith Significant No Inmact c a„ Impact Impact 0 0 KI PAGE 2-34 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY 309 MISSION ROAD- P ONSM rffi� Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologi hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shakinf, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. IMEMOMMMMM Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were is expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surfai rupture of a known earthquake fault. MW MII��MMM=MZMMM o3M=-- Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to ground shaking. PAGE 2-36 1309 MISSIOff-RX)AD—kMAI-ST4JZW CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION longitude - 122.44527 degrees; site class D; mapped spectral acceleration for short periods (S 2.117g; and mapped spectral acceleration for one - second period (S1) 1.169g. iii) Liquefaction Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless sand and silty sand sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic loading. During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can move both horizontally and vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly- graded, fine- grained sands. The project site is underlain by Colma Formation and based upon the borings and soil testing the chances of liquefaction are low (Lai, 2010 and Cotton Shires, 2010) Therefore, the Project would have no impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates that the Project Site is "flatland." (Association of Bay Area Governments, hLtp:H2is.abna.ca.gov/website/Landslides/Viewer.htm) The Geotechnical Report and site inspections identify the site as relatively flat. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the project would have no impact with respect to landslides. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. In absence of the NPDES C -3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during construction. This is described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, below. However, the erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -37 1 01 +i Signific . Pro would have +, significant environmental i. 1( 'i o a geolog or 1 that .i " or s would become +i of the Pro and potentially 1 or 1 ff-site landslide lateral spre subsidence i c ollapse . Gr ound subsidence is considered to be . Therefore 1 4 b no im pact f, to a ge b ecom i n g unstable as + result of 1 i' the Pr o j ect 1 i not result in the potential f1i' 1 or 1 ff-site landslide lateral spreading su bsidence , o coll apse . 9 1 Significance Criteria: The Project w ould have . + •m impact o1 + `Ii o ex pansive 1 creating substantial risks to life or prop DI M oil 1 $ 1 i0 - i Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involve,� c onstruction of ! tic systems in soils incapable adequately iii of i tan or disposa Pr o j ect The does not propose 1 build . `i tic tank or alternate . dispo Pr o j ect The be connected to as . req engin eering ♦ i 1 of approval. fo Pro 1 i have no impact on 1'• i 1 se ' 2-38 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION M - II UT EM"13 &I - Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation All. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS— Would the Project: 12 X i2l 9 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? A Phase I Enxirontnental Site Assessment was prepared for the project (Phase I -Entironmeaal Site Assessment 1309 Vission Road, South Saki Francisco, CA 94080. AE1, Nlay 24, 2010) (Phase 1). The Phase I is incorporated herein by reference. The Phase I was conducted pursuant to the guidehnes PAGE 2- 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY established by the American Society of Testing Nlaterials (ASTNi) Designation E 1527-05, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process" and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for An Appropriate Inquiries (40CFR, Part 312) . The Phase I notes that the Project site has been undeveloped since 1946 based upon aerial photographs. The Project site is not identified on any regulatory data base listings. No on-site environmental conditions were identified, no on-site historical environmental conditions were identified and no on-site environmental issues were identified as a result of the Phase I discovery Fd�� The property to the southeast of the site is identified on a regulatory database as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site and a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) small quantity generator site. Groundwater beneath the Project site flows to the southeast at a depth ranging from 30 to 44 feet below ground surface (bgs). a) and b) Hazardous 1\1aterials Significance Criletia: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public • the environment through the routine transport, use, • disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public • the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence Significance Criterier 1he Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were • ernit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutch hazardous materials substances or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if it was located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 �'Cortese List"). PAGE 2-40 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY of Nlission Road and McLellan Drive. The Project site is not identified on a hazardous mate database _(Phase �. Handling of hazardous materials on the Project site, identified above, would minimal and similar to that • the high school. Si gnificance Criteria. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were locatei within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport • public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project would • 306 feet below that established by the ALUC as requisite to protect public safety and would notresult in a safety hazard for people working or living at the Project site. The Project would have no impactwith respect to height limitations due to a nearby airport. F1711 RMIRWRIIIIIIIIII Significance Giteria- The Project would have a significant envuionmental. impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the f.mroposed Project would have no impact • the implementation • any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-41 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant em impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project site is neither within a wildland fire management area (Fire Hazard Nlanagement Units, Figure 8-4, General Plan, 1999, page 265) not at an urban/wildland interface zone. The Project would have no hnpact on fighting wildland fires. ' 5 "AGE 2-42 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Signifi cant Significant mdth Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Imp act VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —Would the Project: 13 1 309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-43 ■. MISSION ROAD- State Water Oualit- Control Board's General Permitting Requirements 111111111 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. c and d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns/Erosion and Siltation Effects or Alter Existing Drainag-; Patterns/Flooding Effects Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-45 Signficance Criiefia: The Project would have a significant en-,ironmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Signcance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The Project would improve water quality over existing conditions in that BMP's would be rcq=' ed to filter, contain and direct water. Therefore, as-compared to existing conditions, there would be no impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site. qnma�� Significance Gileiia: The Project would have a significant emironmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 100-year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a manner which would impede • redirect flood flows; • if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures • flooding hazards. DAGE 2-46 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUET CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Project site is located in Flood Zone C (Federal Emergency Mapping Act Map (FEMA) Panel Number 065062 0008 B, September 2, 1981) which means that the site is not located in a 100 -year flood hazard zone. The Project site is adjacent to Flood Zone AH on the western side (the SamTrans Parcel), which indicates minim flooding one to three feet above flood elevation. The Colma Creek channel is Flood Zone A which is the 100 year flood zone. The City completed channelization of the creek in 2005. As a result, the greatest portion of the creek is designed to a fift- year flood with a two foot freeboard. The area of the BART station, upstream of it, under it and on the exit side is designed to a 500 year flood zone. (Terry- White, Public Works Director. June 2010). The FE1Nhk Map has not been amended to reflect the flood hazard improvements as a result of the City's channelizing the creek in 2005. As a result, potential impacts associated with flooding are overstated. The Project would have no impactrelated to the placement of people or structures in a flood hazard area, the exposure of people or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows beyond that identified in the 2000 ECREIR. (ABAG, e// .aba .ca.gov /ba area /e ® ps /e oo sj oo s.h . ). j) Tsunami Hazards Significance Criteria. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The City's General Plan estimates that potential wave run -up of a 100 -year tsunami would be approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approx=imately 6.0 feet above msl for a 500 - year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page 250). The Project site is not located in a low -lying area near San Francisco Bay where an earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal wares) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) that could impact the Project site. The Project site is at an elevation of approximately 100 feet above msl (Geotechnicallnvestigation '/4 Acre Parcel, McLellan Drive and Mission Road, South San Francisco, California. April 6, 2009, Berloger Geotechnical Consultants) and would be too high for inundation by a 500 -year tsunami. Additionally, the Project would conform to the latest building code requirements. For these reasons, the impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered to be less than significant. Finding:. The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. Nforeover, the Colma Creek flood improvement and channelization project was completed by the City in 2005, subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR. The channelization improved safety from flooding in the Project area. 309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -47 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Wination Impact Impact VIAIIIIIIWTIR��' � ,II 'fhe South San Francisco General Plan (1999) identifies Proj 6ct site as Community Commercial with a High Density Residential overlay. The Zoning Map identifies the site as Transit Village Medium Density Residential The Project site is within the Somtb San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan (nT) and the E/ Camino Coryidor Redevelopment Plan (ECRRP) areas - 1090 M A$ Proposcd Desi gnation: The requested 1A'R.H amendment permits 50 dwelling units per acre. The designation requires residential uses above podium parking and street front retail along McLellan Drive. The Project proposes 49 dwelling units per acre, podium parking with residential above and retail commercial on the ground floor along the McLellan Street frontage. PAGE 2-48 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY I M 1 m MINIMMER Therefore, the Project proposes a Zoning Nlap amendment to Transit Vi1age High Density Residential to construct 20 units of housing and 5,200 square feet of retail commercial on the 0.41 acre site in conformance with the density assumptions analyzed and planned over die past 12 years. n-) Division • an Established Con-nnunity ! Significance Giteria- The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to ph7sically divide an established community. 3�•� - WV �01 I conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, • regulation • an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose • avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. PAGE 2-50 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY c) Conffict Conservation PlA Finding: Ile Project would not physically divide an established comm The site is currently designated, and used, and the surrounding land uses are mixed use residential, con=etcial and kansit. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-51 Essom Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitination Impact Impact Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result mi an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY ME"EMOM I Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant §ignificant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact A NOISE — Would the Project: X For a Project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? The dominant influences on sound levels M' the Project area are derived from a combination of roadway, commercial and high school land uses. Temporani spikes in noise levels in the Project area result from car homs and occasional aircraft flyovers. M. wo Kff XOTQ Ilk 170 � 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-ER UHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A c i hange of three dBA is considered just noticeable to the human ear. A five dBA change is clearly noticeable and a ten dBA change is perceived as doubling in loudness. uffaq•��l PAGE 2-54 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY ZZENEEmom Project Construction 130• MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY IPAGE 2-55 PAGE 2- 1309 MISSION R•' D- INITIAL STUDY 11 •g iater phases • Vroject consclzuu-P surrounding land uses. The attenuation afforded by the building would further reduce noil ME= Project Operational Noise T he operanon • a rro)ect colta 0 equipment shall be shielded as a result • Design Review Board and staff re and requirements (i.e., as a matter of The Project, as a matter of law, is required to comply with Title 24 noise insulation standards. Noise levels in habitable rooms must be designed to 45 dBA. Title 24 requirements as a part of the '• iiiiLioAnpk*T-41A would reduce interior ambient noise in the residential portion • the Pro�eQ • 45 dBA, CNEL. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-57 Si gnificance CritofiT. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. PAGE 2-58 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY smwxm�� 17M Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Imoact Illiflaation Impact Impact 11 11111 The Project proposes a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the Transit Village plan as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, above. mlsff-23zm� Significance Cyitefia: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth. The Project proposes 5,200 square feet of retail and 20 condominium units. The ECRRP amendment envisioned 21 units • housing and 18,400 square feet • office and 18,400 square feet of retail. The Project would result in less growth but would fit within growth assumptions identified i n the planning documents. The Project's would have no impact on population growth. 101flffiffim I • - an Si gnficance Criteiia: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in ...... .... Ile living at the Proiect site. GAUdave'll fr 111 1tc; Or Veo There are no residential units on the project site. The Project would not require the displacement of -, on-site and therefore would have no impact on the displacement • housing ♦ people. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-1 17390 Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in General Plan, ECCRP or the TVP. The Project site does is vacant and would not displace housing Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant SignfflcantvAth Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and Transit Village Plan as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning. 2012MOR= As described above, in Section 3.9 Land Use and Plannitig and Section 3.12 Population and ffousiag, the Project would not increase the City of South San Francisco's population beyond the 1 projections contained in these plans zm��= PAGE 2-60 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY M�+ M k • I Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Then Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact iti anon XIV. RECREATION TEL Impact The Project proposes a land use and development density that is consistent with th City's General Plan and Zoning, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and PlannhW and Section 3-12 Population and Housing, above. Significance Critetia. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were t resu i an increase in the use of emisting parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it were to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment. Parks and recreational needs within the City are identified from the development assum contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Centennial Way a linear park above Colma I JUV MltRAUN KURD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-61 CHAPTER : ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 2-62 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact kiation Impact Impact V. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC —Would the Project: a) 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)? KI X X D Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The Project site is at the corner ♦ Nfission Road and NIcLellan Drive. Access to the site is derived from Mission Road, McLellan Drive, flickey Boulevard and El Camino Real. The South San Francisco BART station, public transit, is directly across from the Project site. The 2000 ECREIR describes the local and regional roadway system in detail. The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any significant unavoidable impacts with respect toredevelopment plan build-out. a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity Significance Cri/etia: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. 1309 MISSION IRO AD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-63 c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Si gnificance Critvia: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to 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 Air Navigation Hazards are discussed in Section 3.7- Hazards and Hazardous MaterWs. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent with the previous discussion, the Project would have no impact Significance Giteria- The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazar-r due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic. I 2AGE 2-64 1309 MISSION ROAD— 11NMAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION e) Emergency Access Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. the emergency vehicle access to the Project site. Representatives from both the Police and Fire Wepartments (though entitlement review) have reviewed the Project and have not identified impacts associated emergency vehicle access. The Project would have no impact on emergency vehicle � Si gnificance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Project implements the TV to encourage the use of public transit by being located within walking distance of the BART station, by proNiding less parking on site as stipulated in then and • providing pedestrian pathways and bicycle parking and security. The project would have no hnpact on alternative transportation goals and implementation of those goals. Finding: The Project would result in less ADT's than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project would not result in introducing hazards to design features or incompatible land uses. The Project would not alter air traffic patterns or impact the emergency access to the site. The Project would not result in parking impacts. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-65 Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Project: E3 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may se the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitmeiits? capacity to accommodait Project's solid I waste disposal needs? E� g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? Utility requirements resulting frorn Project site buildout were analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project proposes approximately 18,400 square feet less office and 12,200 square feet less commercial than envisioned and analyzed in 2000. Nloteover, in the ECRRP area, approximately 305,000 square feet less retail and 189,400 square feet less office has been constructed than envisioned. PAGE 2-66 1309 MISSION kOAD— INITIAL STUDY , , • . I __pq Significance Giletia. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The City's storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RXVQCB. The South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulations related to stormwater management. As identified in Cbapter L3.4 as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BNIP's and comply with SWPPP regulations. The 2000 ECREIR identified the need to upgrade storinwater infirastructure in the Project area. Stormwater and wastewater lines were upgraded along Mission Road, McLellan Drive and El Camino Real as a part of the BART station construction (Sam Bautista, Senior City Engineer, June 2010). The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQC. MIUMMIS"IT MIMIMM Sioni ,, ficance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the Provider's existing commitments. i WO AO LY, 1[. 1 TUDY PAGE 2-67 The 2000 ECREIR identified die need to upgrade the WQCP and the plant was upgraded 'in the last quarter of 2000. The Project would generate less wastewater than envisioned and planned for in the 2000 ECREIR, as the Project proposes 18,•00 square feet less office and 12,200 square feet less retail development. The Project would have no impactwith respect to wastewater treatment. W= s wm mwl, W. w. I m- ron, Significance Critetia. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction • which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would connect into the stormwater facilities previously upgraded and located in Nfission Road and McLellan Drive. On site trenching would occur to install lines to connect to existing facilities. The Project would have no impact beyond that analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR with respect • increased storm water runoff • the building • expansion • new storm water drainage facilities. .3 M. The Project would have a less than sigvi6cant impact and arguably no impact on other water resources as it would not meet the impact thresholds identified. above, and because the LTNXWP was based upon the development scenario for the site that includes 18,400 square feet of retail and 18,400 square feet • office land use. A new water assessment would not be required for the Project 0 -'14GE 2-68 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL L--JM as the Project would not exceed the development assumptions contained in the ECCRP and the UW1\1P. Ile Project would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to water usage. The UWI\IP projects and accounts for the South San Francisco service area within die CXX'SC jurisdiction. The projected 2010 population is 57,977 which includes the 2,410 additional persons anticipated as a result of land use intensification identified in the S /ECRGP.k discussed in Chapter 1. Significance Criteiia: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be sery by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to acconnnodate the Project's solid waste dispos needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relat t• solid waste. I 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-601, FA Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant vAth Significant No - - - Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE— Impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant uith measures that are Negene environment pro-vided all policies, rules and regulations of all rele governing bodies are adhered to, and the measures contained within this chapter are implemented. ► f =� Cumulative Impacts of the Project are considered to be less than s4gnificant As discussed in the preceding sections of this checklist, implementation of the Project would not cumulatively impact the environment provided all policies, rules and regulations of 0 relevant governing bodies are adhered to, f' measures contained within this chapter are implemented. c) Ad-verse Effects on Human Beings The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Noise, air quality, and traffic impacts on adjacent land uses are less than sjr ficant The Project would not expose people to new hazards such as geologic risks, flooding, or airport hazards. There would be no other adverse effects on human beings. MISSION ROAD— i'm I 1 0 The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable ninpact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General Plan policies of tirdinances protecting biological resources. The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. There ate historic, archaeological or - paleontological resources or human remains located on the Proje site or within 1.0 miles of the Project site based upon existing data 'including literature searchel- soil borings taken to a depth of 34 feet and grading. The Project would have a no impact 0 cultural resources. 'N[4 0044TIMIS. �Ok -. �0-1 0 Igo, F M74 " "'M 5 : rMITrf The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is currently designated for mixed use and the surrounding land uses are mixed use residential, commetcial, and transit. The Project would not result in any individual1y or cumulatively considerable impacts. 115 MIN the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents. Construction noise was identified in the 201 The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan, ECCRP or the IYP. The Project site is vacant and would not displace housing units or residents. The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan, WP and ECRRP. School impact fees are collected by the City's Building Division based upon the square footage of residential and commercial construction. These fees are used by the school districts for school services. Development of the Project site would not ificrease the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. I Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is proposing development consistent with the General Plan and is required by law to pay Quimby Act fees for park and recreation development and maintenance. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks andrecreation. The Project would result in less ADT's than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project would not result in introducing hazards to design features or incompatible land uses. The Project would not alter air traffic patterns or impact the emergency access to the site. The Project would not result in parking impacts. 'fhe City's wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01 and has adequate capacity to treat Project wastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The UVWNIP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the 1309 MISSION ROAD-ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PAGE 3-3 Project. New construction will be regulated by BIB s, an improvement over existing conditions. ne Project would not Signature Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner PAGE 3-4 1309 MISSION ROAD— ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION