The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 30-2014RESOLUTION NO. 30 -2014 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14.5 ACRE SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL VILLAGE AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ( "Applicant "), has submitted an application for a mixed -use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial /retail space and up to 284 residential rental units ( "Project "); and, WHEREAS, approval of Applicant's proposal is considered a "Project" as that term is defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "); and, WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, an initial study was performed, the result of which was preparation and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration ( "IS /MND ") analyzing the proposed Project and concluding that approval of the Project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels below established CEQA thresholds of significance with the adoption of mitigation measures and enforcement of such measures through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP "); and, WHEREAS, the IS /MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30 -day public review period, beginning on April 12, 2013, during which time members of the public were invited to comment on the environmental analysis and conclusions for the proposed Project; and, WHEREAS, six comment letters were submitted on the IS /MND, from the San Mateo County Health System, San Francisco International Airport, County of San Mateo Department of Public Works, C /CAG, the California Department of Transportation and the City of San Bruno; and, WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the IS /MND and prepared a Final MND for circulation, which consists of the IS /MND (incorporated by reference), all comments received on the IS /MND, written responses to comments received on the IS /MND, revisions to the IS /MND where appropriate, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( "MMRP "); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15, 2013, to consider the IS /MND, the proposed Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Development Agreement for the Project and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS /MND and approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013 which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13, 2013, and another duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February 26, 2014 and to March 12, 2014, to consider the IS /MND, the Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan and Development Agreement and take public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the IS /MND, including all comment letters submitted, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the IS /MND, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan EIR and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project application; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9, 2013; the 180 El Camino Real IS /MND, including the Draft and Final IS /MND, the MMRP and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on August 15, 2013, and Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013, which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13, 2013, and duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February 26, 2014 and to March 12, 2014, and City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit A) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, included with the Final IS /MND (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the land use, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov't Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 5. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council has considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, and based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the following findings regarding the environmental analysis of the Project: a. In October 1999, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan; in 2001 the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for updates to the General Plan. In 2010, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the South El Camino Real General Plan and Zoning Amendments. CEQA allows for streamlined approval of actions that are consistent with adopted General Plans for which an EIR was certified. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15152, 15183.) An initial study was prepared for the proposed Project and a mitigated negative declaration analyzed the potential for impacts that were peculiar to the Project or not analyzed as significant impacts in the General Plan EIR, Supplemental EIR, or South El Camino Real EIR. The IS/MND, which expressly considers the City's previous EIRs, concludes that approval of the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. b. Design features of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures proposed in the IS /MND and included in the MMRP, will operate to ensure the impacts of the proposed Project will not exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, and as further documented in the IS /MND for the Project, additional mitigation measures beyond those established in the MMRP are not required for the Project. C. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in a significant environmental effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the IS /MND (ND12 -0004) for this Project, attached as Exhibit A, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of March, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Pradeep Gupta, and Liza Normandy Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino and Mayor Karyl Matsumoto NOES: None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None ATTEST: Anna Brown, Deputy City Clerk Exhibits: Exhibit A: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit B: Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2134233.1 Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real Prepared for The City of South San Francisco By DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners April 8, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 1.1 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration .................... ............................1 -1 1.2 Project Information ........................................................... ............................1 -3 1.3 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR ................1 -6 1.4 City of South San Francisco Standard Conditions of Project Approval ....... 1 -8 1.5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................... ...........................1 -14 1.6 Lead Agency's Determination ..................................... ............................... 1 -15 2 Project Description ................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 2.1 Project Location and Setting ......................................... ............................... 2 -1 2.2 Project Description ........................................................ ............................... 2 -6 3 Environmental Checklist .......................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................... ............................... 3 -2 3.2 Agricultural Resources ..................................................... ............................3 -4 3.3 Air Quality ..................................................................... ............................... 3 -6 3.4 Biological Resources .................................................. ............................... 3 -14 3.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................... ............................... 3 -16 3.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................... ...........................3 -20 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................... ............................... 3 -23 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................. ............................... 3 -25 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................... ............................... 3 -29 3.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................... ...........................3 -32 3.11 Mineral Resources .......................................................... ...........................3 -33 3.12 Noise ............................................................................... ...........................3 -34 3.13 Population and Housing .................................................. ...........................3 -36 Table of Contents 3.14 Public Services ........................................................... ............................... 3 -37 3.15 Recreation ....................................................................... ...........................3 -39 3.16 Transportation and Traffic ............................................... ...........................3 -40 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................... ...........................3 -49 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ...........................3 -51 4 References .................................................................................. ............................... 4 -1 5 Appendix .................................................................................... ............................... 5 -1 Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170 -192 El Camino Real Air Quality Analysis Calculation Output First Quarter 2012 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report: Chevron 306441 (Former Unocal No. 6980) 190 -192 El Camino Real Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco, Updated Draft Report 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Figures Figure 1.1: Regional Context .................................................. ............................... 1 -4 Figure 1.2: Project Location .................................................... ............................... 1 -5 Figure 2.1: South ECR GPA Boundary and Project Site ........ ............................... 2 -2 Figure 2.2: View of Site From El Camino Real .......................... ............................2 -3 Figure 2.3: View of On -site Parking and Fences at Residential Neighborhood Westof Site .......................................................... ............................... 2 -3 Figure 2.4: Commercial Uses East of Site ................................. ............................2 -4 Figure 2.5: Commercial Uses South of Site ............................... ............................2 -4 Figure 2.6: Commercial Buildings Along El Camino Real .......... ............................2 -5 Figure2.7: Site Plan ............................................................... ............................... 2 -8 Figure 2.8: Second Level Plan ................................................... ............................2 -9 Figure 2.9: Third Level Plan ...................................................... ...........................2 -10 Figure 2.10: Landscape Plan ...................................................... ...........................2 -11 Figure 2.11: Conceptual Podium Level Landscape Plan ............ ...........................2 -12 Figure 2.12: West Elevation ........................................................ ...........................2 -13 Figure 2.13: North Elevation ....................................................... ...........................2 -14 Figure 2.14: Phase 1 Elevation - Retail Major 2 (Safeway) .... ............................... 2 -15 Figure 2.15: Health Club Elevation ......................................... ............................... 2 -16 Figure 2.16: Phase 1 Elevation - Health Club ............................. ...........................2 -17 Figure 2.17: Building E Elevation ................................................ ...........................2 -18 Figure 2.18: South Elevation - Retail Major 2 ( Safeway) ............ ...........................2 -19 Figure 2.19: Elevation - Retail Major 2 and 3 ......................... ............................... 2 -20 Figure 2.20: Elevation - Building B ............................................. ...........................2 -21 Figure 2.21: Elevation - Building A ............................................. ...........................2 -22 Figure 2.22: Elevation - Buildings C and D ................................. ...........................2 -23 Figure 3.1: Remediation Compound Location ...................... ............................... 3 -27 Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1.1: Summary Of Impacts And Proposed Mitigation Measures iv That Reduce The Impact ......................................... ............................1 -7 Table 2.1: Total Gross Square Footage ................................ ............................... 2 -6 Table 2.2: Residential Units ...................................................... ............................2 -6 Table 3.1: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance (Pounds Per Day) ....................3 -8 Table 3.2: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions With Mitigation Measures as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance ... 3-8 Table 3.3: Operations - Related Emissions as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance at Project Level .......... ............................... 3 -9 Table 3.4: Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Vicinity ............................. 3 -11 Table 3.5: Existing Permitted Stationary Pollutant Source and Roadway Pollutant Source Compared to BAAQMD Thresholds .......................3 -13 Table 3.6: Constructions - Related Greenhouse Gas Emission ........................... 3 -23 Table 3.7: Operations - Related Greenhouse Gas Emission as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance at Project Level ...............3 -24 Table 3.8: C /CAG Level Of Service Thresholds .................. ............................... 3 -41 Table 3.9: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ....... 3 -42 Table 3.10: AM and PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................................... ............................... 3 -43 Table 3.11: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Cumulative Level of Service Summary............................................................ ............................... 3 -44 Table 3.12: AM and PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Cumulative Level of Service Summary .................................. ............................... 3 -47 iv Introduction I.I Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration This Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq., as amended. Pursuant to State law this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration will be made available to the State Clearinghouse and the public for a 30 -day review period prior to the Lead Agency considering adoption of this document. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) when considering adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration the Lead Agency is bound by the following: A. Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision - making body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation. B. Prior to approving a project the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision - making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the whole of the record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis. C. When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. D. When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the Lead Agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the Project or made a condition of approval to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. E. A Lead Agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a public use Chapter I: Introduction airport, without first considering whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area. In the case of the proposed Project, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission are the advisory bodies. The decision making body is the South San Francisco City Council. LEAD AGENCY /CONTACT The Lead Agency for this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco. During the 30 -day comment period, please mail comments on this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration to the project manager for the Lead Agency at the following address: Billy Gross, Associate Planner Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Contact Phone: (650) 877 -8535 1 -2 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.2 Project Information PROJECT TITLE 180 El Camino Real LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department (mailing) P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 (physical) 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Billy Gross, Associate Planner (650) 877 -8535 PROJECT LOCATION 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco (See Figure 1.1 Project Location) Assessor's Parcel Number: 014183110 PROJECT APPLICANT'S NAME AND ADDRESS WT Mitchell Group 3380 Vincent Rd Suite Hub Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 REQUIRED PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS Use Permit Design Standard Exceptions Design Review Transportation Demand Management Plan CalTrans — Approval for the proposed left turn on WB El Camino Real onto the south driveway GENERAL PLAN /ZONING DESIGNATION El Camino Real Mixed Use /El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) 1 -3 Chapter I: Introduction SURROUNDING LAND USES AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT See Chapter 2 Project Description. f/ F aARr � F 1 5 AL IT L l '� `BRISBANE ` '� ra •� l ;:I y C❑LMA J - a S 0 c 'IZ •t Pp SAN .F RANCISC PRCIFICk, � 'r WPW Ol: I 180 El Camino Real South San Francisco, CA RT n � V SAN BRUNO ' r} t 0 2 111LF= Figure 1.1: Regional Context 1 -4 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 1.2: Project Location sl , e�: �y 180 El Camino Real South San Francisco, CA 'y 3' *' +° ' r �s� . „. • r.; � . � a � Ste'` <� S +w . ,lb �`• � � '� ,� � =- �, �n qty'' 6 0 N, 1 -5 Chapter I: Introduction 1.3 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR The City of South San Francisco last prepared a comprehensive General Plan update in 1999. At that time, the City also prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. On March 24, 2010, the City adopted the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (South ECR GPA), which amended the General Plan to allow mixed -use development along the South El Camino Real Corridor. The Amendment added the El Camino Real Mixed Use designation to the General Plan, with which the project site is currently designated. Zoning Ordinance amendments were also adopted at the same time. A full program -level EIR was prepared on these amendments, and was certified by the City Council following public review and comment on the Revised Draft EIR. The South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR (South ECR GPA EIR) was prepared as a Program EIR, pursuant to Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). To make environmental review as efficient as possible, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish policies and procedures for relying on previously certified EIRs, and focusing the environmental analysis of subsequent projects. This process, known as "tiering" allows for: "the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program, or ordinance followed by narrower or site - specific environmental impact reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior environmental impact report." (Pub. Resources Code, 4 21068.5.) CEQA also allows a lead agency to tier a negative declaration from a previously prepared EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, 4 15152.) Specific provisions in CEQA also provide for tiering from an EIR prepared for a General Plan. (Pub. Resources Code, 4 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines, 4 15183.) Consistent with the CEQA tiering principles and procedures, in evaluating the potential environmental effects of this Project, an initial study was prepared to determine whether the Project could have any significant impacts that had not been adequately addressed in the South ECR GPA EIR. The initial study that follows includes analysis of potential Project related impacts. The initial study and the accompanying analyses demonstrates that there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have significant impacts that have not been adequately addressed in either the General Plan EIR or the South ECR GPA EIR, or that cannot be avoided through compliance with federal, State and local policies. Therefore, a mitigated negative declaration is proposed for the Project. Table 1.1 summarizes environmental factors potentially affected and mitigation measures that reduce the impact to a less than significant level: 1 -6 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 1.1: Summary Of Impacts And Proposed Mitigation Measures That Reduce The Impact Impact Mitigation Significance With Page Measure Mitigation Number 3.3 Air Quality b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to AQ -I Less Than 3 -8 an existing or projected air quality violation? Significant 3.5 Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a CULT -I Less Than 3 -17 historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Significant b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an CULT -2 Less Than 3 -18 archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Significant c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological CULT -3 Less Than 3 -19 resource or site or unique geologic feature? Significant 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment HAZ- I Less Than 3 -26 through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous Significant materials? b) 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 3.16 Transportation and Traffic a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy TRANS -I Less Than 3 -46 establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance Significant of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? In accordance with CEQA, this mitigated negative declaration tiers from the South ECR GPA EIR, which is available for review during regular business hours at the City's Economic and Community 1 -7 Chapter I: Introduction Development Department - Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California, 94080. 1.4 City of South San Francisco Standard Conditions of Project Approval The following Conditions of Project Approval (COAs) are required through the City of South San Francisco standard project review and approval procedures. Each of the following requirements will be imposed upon and incorporated into the Project, as conditions of approval and /or conditions of a building permit. Implementation of these COAs will help ensure that potential impacts associated with the Project remain less than significant. AIR QUALITY Dust Control. All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) dust control measures including Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures, Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD May 2011. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by City inspectors. The measures include: • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. • Install sandbags or other erosion - control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break -up of pavement. • Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. • Use dust -proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. 1 -8 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration • Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer - recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. • Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. • Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2484 of the California Code of regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Toxic Air Contaminants. The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 1978) and /or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain a J Permit from the BAAQMD. The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site and if it is not there the job will be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City's Building Division. Through this process, the BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that asbestos and lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead based paints and asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City supervision to ensure compliance. Vehicle Emissions. The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle non - residential trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode use for all projects is twenty -eight percent below standard non - residential trip rates modeled for the project without Traffic Demand Management (TDM) measures and incremental increase in reduction. Projects with increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Table 18 -1 -B Uniform Building Code. All construction projects are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in Volume 2 Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the construction specifications to mitigate potential impacts due to liquefaction. This requirement is enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. 1 -9 Chapter I: Introduction Compliance with the Uniform Building Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division. Geotechnical Reports. The City Engineering Division also requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports address design and construction specifications for the project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City's consultant. Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical professional of record is required to sign all project drawings and the City's geotechnical consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Operational). All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City /County Association of Governments (C /CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COA's. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Public Works Department. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development and operations in order to prevent pollution due to project occupancy. Typical storm water quality protection measures include: • Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch. • Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration /detention basins as feasible. • Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and retention /detention basins into the site plan as feasible. • Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design. • Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system. Im 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration • Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand strips before discharge to the City's storm drain system. Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Construction). The City of South San Francisco requires through COAs, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco's Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and /or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include: • Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near 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. • Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water before the drain inlets. • Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas. • Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control. • Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets. • Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control. • Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly. • Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud. • Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. • Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils. • Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids. • Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather. • Use terracing to prevent erosion. • 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''. Chapter I: Introduction • 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. • 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. • Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers' instructions. 2 Eel 11= Interior Ambient Noise. The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through its General Plan, Municipal Code (Chapter 8.32 - "Noise ") and State law. The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi - family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single - family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor - ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or Ldn) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or Ldn). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division. The City, through its General Plan, regulates noise in the City of South San Francisco. Policies include: 9 -I -4 Ensure that project applications for all new noise- sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including hospitals and residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room, based on the latest official San Francisco International Airport (SFO) noise contours and on -site measurement data. 9 -1 -5 Ensure that project applications for new noise- sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including schools and places of assembly, proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than Leq 45 dB for the noisiest hour of normal facility operation. 9 -I -6 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. 1 -12 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 -I -10 Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in 70 dB+ CNEL areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria. 9 -I -11: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA - accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for SFO to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. Exterior Ambient Noise. The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise levels through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code regulates noise pursuant to land use and time of day. Lower density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 dB from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 dB from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are implemented largely through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Fire Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. The City of South San Francisco regulates construction noise through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.050(d)). Construction noise is limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the Chief Building Official under certain circumstances. 1 -13 Chapter I: Introduction 1.5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filed in block (X) were determined to be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact" with mitigation measures identified that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level, as indicated in the Environmental Checklist (Chapter 3) and the related discussion that follows. Unmarked factors ( ) were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on the discussion provided in Chapter 3. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils 1 -14 ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Land Use /Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation /Traffic ❑ Utilities/ Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.6 Lead Agency's Determination On the basis of the evaluation in this Initial Study: I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. 5u'sy MHdn Chief planner � / r-2.) Da (e 1 -15 Chapter I: Introduction This page intentionally left blank. 1 -16 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Location and Setting The Project site is located at the southern boundary of the City of South San Francisco, west of US 101 at 180 El Camino Real as shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. The site is located on the southern part of the South ECR GPA planning area at the southeast corner of South Spruce Avenue and El Camino Real, and north of the City of San Bruno. Uses within the same block include commercial buildings and surface parking located directly east and south of the site. Surrounding and nearby land uses are a mix of commercial and residential, with predominantly commercial uses along El Camino Real, across Huntington Avenue (east of the site) and south of the site, and residential uses west of El Camino Real and one block north of South Spruce Avenue as shown in Figures 2.1 to 2.6. Golden Gate National Cemetery is located southwest of the site. The Project site is a 14.5 -acre corner lot with frontages on El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Portions of the site extend as driveways to Huntington Avenue. Existing uses at the site include three single -story commercial buildings totaling 143,000 square feet. The largest building at the eastern portion of the property includes Safeway Supermarket, Bally's Total Fitness, a vacant unit, Bedroom Express, and Longs Drug store. Another building on the northwestern portion includes Firestone Tire and Auto Center. A third building includes the canopy and kiosk of a former service station located west of the Firestone building. The remaining area comprises paved parking surrounding the buildings and landscaped areas within and along the perimeter of the site. Currently, four driveways along El Camino Real, two driveways along South Spruce Avenue, and two driveways along Huntington Avenue provide site access. Chapter 2: Project Description Figure 2.1: South ECR GPA Boundary and Project Site e Bd° �6 X17 2 -2 g 4 _ _ phcragr . ,.,• ' -' �(So..lh Snn Froncexo �`�, ,,j� r�� -�. lLi; rr i � Iflph Srlw v7 � 11mwMn! // v F ,� •M 44. AuN + Ir• 1. i i&d" VPIP Condirs (''� Shopping ranlE�rSITE •�' srrE T80 EI Clrmlll a Rea �` Pfv.v ✓i Fin wf -'' �. Geed Ilf Sropl.a � . • �yi'rys�% L we US Lucky � 6 -o Buy % , P �`O SAlY $NUN BART STRII er Tcnleran 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 2.2: View of Site from El Camino Real Figure 2.3: View of On -site Parking and Fences at Residential Neighborhood West of Site 2 -3 Chapter 2: Project Description Figure 2.4: Commercial Uses East of Site Figure 2.5: Commercial Uses South of Site 2 -4 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 2.6: Commercial Buildings Along El Camino Real 2 -5 Chapter 2: Project Description 2.2 Project Description The proposed Project consists of removal of existing buildings and construction of six new ones: Buildings A, B, C, D, and Major Tenant 3 (CVS), and a mixed -use building containing ground -floor commercial with parking and residential uses above. Buildings A, B, C, D, and Major Tenant 3 (CVS) consist of two stories (up to 40 feet in height) and the mixed -use buildings consist of five stories (up to approximately 70 feet in height with one tower component at 90 feet height above Safeway (See Figures 2.7 to 2.28). The following table shows the gross square footage of the buildings to be constructed on the 14.5 -acre site. Table 2.1: Total Gross Square Footage Building Area (so Retail (I" Level) 674,470 Major Tenant I /Safeway, Major Tenant 2, Major Tenant 100,670 3 /CVS 1.07 Health Club 36,000 Buildings A, B, C, D, E 50,500 Office (2 °d Level) Major Tenant 3 and Buildings A, B, C, D 35,327 Sub Total - Retail /Office 222,497 Residential 52 1- Bedroom @ 800 sf (3 Levels) 124,800 43 2- Bedroom @ 1,100 sf (3 levels) 141,900 Corridor /Common Area (3 Levels) 137,538 Podium Plaza Area 47,735 Sub Total- Residential 451,973 Total (Gross Square Feet) 674,470 Total Project Site Area (Acres) 14.5 Floor Area Ratio (Excluding Parking) 1.07 The proposed commercial component is approximately 222,500 square feet. The proposed residential component comprises a mix of one and two bedroom units totaling 285 units. The following table shows the proposed unit breakdown. Table 2.2: Residential Units Unit Type Square Footage per Unit Number of Units I- Bedroom 800 156 2- Bedroom 1,100 129 Total (# of Units) 285 Density 19.6 du /ac 2 -6 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration A total of 1,249 parking spaces will provide parking for the retail and residential components of the project. Ground level parking will provide 580 spaces and a parking structure will provide 669 spaces. The residential parking ratio is 1.5 spaces per 1- bedroom units and 1.8 spaces per 2- bedroom units while the commercial parking ratio is one space per 250 square feet. Additionally, 20 bicycle parking spaces will be provided near building entrances. As proposed, vehicular traffic access is provided at two driveways along El Camino Real, two driveways along South Spruce Avenue, and two driveways along Huntington Avenue. The southernmost driveway along El Camino Real will be modified to allow left turn entry from southbound traffic along El Camino Real. This would include modifications to the existing median, which currently prevents left -turn in along El Camino Real. Driveways along South Spruce Avenue will be realigned to accommodate a right -turn in, right -turn out and one that allows all turns. A modification to the existing median and a new southbound left -turn lane along El Camino Real would be subject to Caltrans review and approval. Pedestrian pathways and entrances are located along driveways and between buildings on El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue (See Figure 2.7). The Project consists of two phases. Phase 1 will include: • Construction of pad for Major Tenant 3 (CVS); • Demolition of all three single -story existing buildings totaling 143,000 square feet; • Construction of site work including underground utility; • Construction of ground level retail for Major Tenants 1 (Safeway), 2, and 3 (CVS), a health club, and both levels for Buildings A, B, C and D; • Construction of 184 parking stalls above Safeway and Major Tenant 2; and • Construction of 126 residential units on three levels above Safeway and Major Tenant 2 (See Figures 2.16 and 2.28). Phase 2 will occur when economically feasible, and will include: • Potential demolition of building portion of parking in Phase 1 to be connected to parking in Phase 2; • Replacement parking to accommodate any Phase 1 parking impacted due to construction of Phase 2 parking; • Podium deck over the health club and Building E to accommodate second level parking, then connect to parking in Phase 1; • Construction of Building E; and • 141 residential units on three levels. 2 -7 0 i N O El vJ § \ f \ © Z ƒ .% \ \ \ / \ \ .§ 3 E \ rd CL � � � _ § � � 46 q £ � LL � § liLLEMEM11 I I I{ � ! � |} |\ 2% ! // $ 2 / 0/ / )~ I � ! \ / r• 2 U) / � d) C) - = 2 ° Q— E ® o \ /a) ± & < % �\ ! � ° I / : -0 / & < / �/ a� r y ~ = o r = G® 'e / �G M 0- (D � � � � � 0 � � U) « � r_ rd CL o O v GO EL RI ----------- \ 0 - HIM 10111 NO E _0 (D E 0 II 0- EO < 0- >1 E _0 N -+.- 0 E ------------- ------------------- wav ---------------- m 0 06 .E C'I M a, C 0 v ---------- a 0 N Q Q cu U U) C- CU J CL a� a� J c E0 N O 0 V N i N N v GO U LL C c� CL c� N Q Q (0 E � U O (� Un N N c O v v V N N v Z v v jj�� tw ® IEB E t ; M [EB E o U � - - e AQ C O 4J rd I W 4J 3 N N 47 i 7 bA LL cn a O `V W W t0 U) Q E E a a �e U F 2 EE it r- 0 W W W M N E E r a W d to ra 101 1 11 1! RRI I 4�'j OEM lzuz 0 v v V N z v . uo A:! v v I v 0 c v U W O 00 III i I I O t+ W 3 v W ii hi lii� L t( f. L -:3 ■� �■1■i■■ ■ ■ ■� III■WM■MMIM■E h A■■■■■■■im w Ti � a R t a w 0 c 0 y E 0 U - Y ou T fE Q d co N 0 •O_ � m ; m � ~ O d W W W rd s CL N 47 i 7 bA LL O t+ W 3 v W ii hi lii� L t( f. L -:3 ■� �■1■i■■ ■ ■ ■� III■WM■MMIM■E h A■■■■■■■im w Ti ME ■■ Imo. Imo. IAA ? ,k6g. c 0 V H N N �o N i v U _ 0 4J rd I w m U s rd 47 on i 7 bA LL d a> U) a c O m O W ca W E r a a on U x r_ O c� d W s L O I .0 N U s rd a� 2 0 4J rd I W W rd s CL w a� i 7 bA LL _ O c� O W t 0 I d v � Cl) a' a U 2 d L) M r_ O ca > W W U 2 r_ O ca O W L O c O rd I W W bA o =_ � m V N O _ N N v GO U LL II ii is c■ " • Imw■ ME■ I WN I A � 0 I Eli ■ ■ ■:IIN 1■■■ . ■ ■ ■II ■ ■1 ■ ■ ■1 ■II I Mani OMNI ■ �Q... JI ::lI —I mm 4.- E a a ro w m m 00 N 0 W w m _ tq " Wa I Eli ■ ■ ■:IIN 1■■■ . ■ ■ ■II ■ ■1 ■ ■ ■1 ■II I Mani OMNI ■ �Q... JI ::lI —I mm 4.- E a a ro w m m 00 N c 0 v v V N N v uo Z v v . uo A:! v v I v 0 c v U W O 00 a 3 r r N L. O .rd E 4J O C rd I W s m O H 46 N �r 7 bA LL _ O W t Cl) V o, _ O W t Cl) V 3 w N `o M C rd N i O .rd E .rd 4J O C c C V Q W V N O _ i N N a i v GO U LL M. 2. .. I =. E. MM C. c. �. �. ly O E R U n 1 C O W W N i O W i O CO E K O V W E O 0 `o 0 R m O C E R U W r_ O V/ W i L O Z O W W N o� N 8 0 riu 2 c 0 v v V N v uo Z v v . uo v v v I v 0 U W O 00 W W W 0 4J rd I W O N N 47 i 7 bA LL O W i �0 7i a� 0 c E f6 U W L•J /T `V W W i L O Z ro a 0 II O aLL a"� C-3 m qa oil 6� W II m - i 104D; Q fn v 0 Q 7i a� 0 c E f6 U W L•J /T `V W W i L O Z ro a 0 II T_ j O m LLJm E ry a (n m W m - Q 111 W L (00 7i a� 0 c E f6 U W L•J /T `V W W i L O Z ro a 0 Q W m c O V Q W +.r V N O a N N N v GO U LL W W N c� Q WN O ca O W t O Q ' w a V, t w .O > W m 4a Lm O Q Z r N e c O A> W W y d Q 0 N N N N c O v v V N N v uo Z v v . uo v v v 0 c v U W O _ rd U 0 ao m 0 rd I W N N N 47 i LL a O W i O O h O. /w O V, N c W N U o0 y w �ii m Ilm M N c N 0 a z N 0 w a N r_ O c� W U a 0 LU d F C O W L ro O" 6 0 Zy o C 4J N v GO EL m to a 0 0 0 Z �Illlii m lano.' � O II 5 E ca 0 cn LLI o E 0 co W b II xv C LU 0 0 co 0 cn 0 Z W. F-1 Am T CL 4J O E 0 4J 0 CL ,w ri N bA LL LLI a LLI Cl) m LU -j 0 CL 3 f) N 9 AV No' 9 N 'IN P Sg N I, MA ts L N B CA Q 'I V a 0 N I V 0 co < U LLI LLI 0 0- EL C) F LU 0 In PM 0 V H N �o a _ rd CL bA C i E CL N N a i v GO U LL 5 X o m d � o � - -- fi- �g Y a� i i1 r z ='� z xn x a I- � �a ° 4a °I :�; I a€a �a is � ➢ � � AIN 7 ilk N 40 1 �a i 't LLB; Ilk �fi LL a lk lk I i u .o N N c 0 FFFFFFW 0 0 0 0 � F�F Fassas�ass�s�sa�s � $; bvp(D rl k°z O :XsX �, ■ m ■ i$i'.g L k � $ Y Via€ da - - — — — — — — — — — — — — $ $ qLAR o I =- a, N p $ jai Fd 6aii awaia€ i $ e a $ 5 $g$8 Ua as 1A gii$ i 6a€ q \ t yx ia€ Jigy I $a€ \ I i 4aa E \ pa YI €� a = $Fa t IN SRN $ B 6a€ $gN N \ \ \ \\ d wg m N CL �,sama sin 1 YdA e� kp a € 5 Itss e* i t � @aa I I• I � * � L Bigot Rill � jig: 5a 5� •. / � r— ��- -ads �..� -- w. � .� i g ya€ •� $aA IE dl // . Y $NF LA N C ILI NN B a N $a$ - - - - --- -- b 5 x - -_- gee I R a� m mg U W =s I a'e� lo M o O Q Q z Q � z Q z O Q W a Lt o a Q W° Z o tttt � d¢Uo ¢O www i r L a ti U 4J �9! O C O U 4J c O E O bA C E >r a� 3 o � � >r H bOj N a N N N a i .° ao U LL �j. , LL I 0. I � oeo(D ° o e a co R< 3�w, v � o N 0 C9 fo ' LL r LL I N a mil• aao 1 i -1 2 C aU) piCL � 1 oa F� CD- m$BmnBm�go �o Q �BASCw w �a �F �j. , LL I 0. I � oeo(D ° o e a co R< 3�w, v � o N 0 C9 fo ' LL r LL I N a mil• aao 1 i -1 2 C aU) piCL � 1 oa F� CD- R C3 z Ow ¢Q z z OZ O Z Imi wF- ww cc w cc O m u) z O z w w Q O m a w ir a C7 z Y a �o Q w �a R C3 z Ow ¢Q z z OZ O Z Imi wF- ww cc w cc O m u) z O z w w Q O m a w ir a C7 z Y a O v v V N N N O +.r v N O U 'w 0 C rd CL a� rd s CL 46 N N 47 i 7 bA LL N L O .c L _ 3 �l) G1 > J° y y N R a v � O L O m N h w aN n li w w a a O C N E E 6wr16 M NN a ow o L O v E E N m L c v o N is amm _ X o V/ a otf E o V' o N > X0 3 N �N -��E a� y �+ U L E E o� y m a+ O ilC V C � u N.m1 m w" m °m °�?a m e °� c a O m m O .^ �� 0 as r L o =o a ag �a� E O w v Q- d a a e a` C i m oc � a V � C � N L O .c L _ 3 �l) G1 > J° y y N R a v � m N Y m aN n li w w a a y o w E E v E E °(D is amm t2 d E ML N O W > °0 tea[ J 4-: E � L N � D E O oa 'a o m � d o �C4 .. N_ d I M r a N O v � ol N N c 0 2 O U m z O 00 r > Jy N L �a 000 'L^ CD V Chapter 2: Project Description This page intentionally left blank. 2 -30 3 Environmental Checklist This Environmental Checklist provides the technical analysis and discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation measures in support of the City of South San Francisco's determination regarding the appropriateness of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental review process for the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. These potential impacts are based on the Environmental Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and each checklist item is followed by a detailed discussion and, if necessary, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The level of significance is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the Project's potential for significant impacts. The following levels of impact significance are described in this initial study: No Impact - Impact does not apply to the projects like the one involved. Less than Significant Impact - Impact would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment and would not require mitigation. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation - Impact may result in a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment; the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impact - Impact may result in a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.1 Aesthetics Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact AESTHETICS — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 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? DISCUSSION a) Scenic Vistas Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Scenic views that may be impacted by the Project include limited long -range views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains that are visible facing north from South Spruce Avenue. Views facing west are blocked by existing fences and residential developments along El Camino Real. Views facing south are blocked due to uphill slope along El Camino Real and commercial developments south of the site. The proposed Project would not block existing views of Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountains from El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. While the proposed Project may obstruct limited views of the San Bruno Mountains and Sign Hill from within the site, given existing obstructions from the existing site and surrounding buildings, this would not create a new substantial adverse effect. Therefore, the impact on scenic vistas is less than significant. b) State Scenic Highway The Project site is not located on or visible from a State Scenic Highway, nor is El Camino Real a designated or eligible scenic highway. Therefore, there is no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) Visual Character The Project site is currently a shopping center with a one -story box retail building and two other stand- alone buildings surrounded by surface parking and limited landscape along the site perimeter. The proposed Project would substantially enhance the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings by providing a well - articulated and visually engaging facade along El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Furthermore, the mixed use retail /office buildings along El Camino Real implement the goals of the South ECR GPA and the Grand Boulevard Initiative that emphasize 3 -2 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration walkability and buildings built up to the sidewalk along El Camino Real. Therefore, there is no adverse impact on visual character. d) Light or Glare Sources of light and glare in the Project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, surface parking lot lights, and city street lights. The existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban setting. The proposed Project would increase the building area on the Project site, and therefore, would increase the amount of nighttime lighting and glare. However, development standards that control outdoor artificial light, such as shielded light fixtures that reduce glare onto the public right -or -way or adjoining properties (per the California Green Building Standards Code' and the City's Zoning Ordinance), would reduce potentially significant long -term light and glare impacts to less than significant levels. ' California Building Standards Commission, 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, Section 5.106.8, January 1, 2011 3 -3 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.2 Agricultural Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination Potentially Less Than Less Than No of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ✓ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ✓ Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ✓ forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ✓ land to non - forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ✓ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? 3 -4 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION a — e) Farmland and Forestland The Project site does not contain any farmland or timberland. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural or forest use and no parcels are classified Williamson Act contract lands. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. 3 -5 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.3 Air Quality Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ✓ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ✓ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ✓ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ✓ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ✓ substantial number of people? DISCUSSION a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the latest BAAQMD adopted document that provides air quality goals and control measures for the Project area. The goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP are: • Attain air quality standards; • Reduce population exposure and protecting public health in the Bay Area; and • Reduce GHG emission and protect the climate. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Updated May 2011 and May 2012) are consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP goals. The analysis in Section (b) below shows that Project - generated construction and operation - related emissions would be mitigated to remain within the thresholds established by BAAQMD Thus, the proposed Project is not in conflict with the applicable air quality plan and impacts are less than significant. 2 The Air District's June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the 3 -6 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Air Quality Standards The following analysis is based on methodologies and assumptions recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012). The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD's construction and /or operational mass emission thresholds. California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2011.1.1, a computer model developed in cooperation with air districts within the state including BAAQMD, was used to calculate Project - generated emissions. CalEEMOD model is preferred to URBEMIS for CEQA analysis as it incorporates combustion GHG and GHG emissions from indirect sources.' A combination of project specific information such as construction schedule and land use information as described in Section 2.2 Project Description of this document and default information contained in CaIEEMod were used to obtain construction - related and operations - related emissions. See Appendix for assumptions and detailed calculation output tables. Construction - Related Impacts The following analyzes construction - related criteria pollutants including reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PMIo), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emitted during excavation, paving, painting, operating machinery, or transporting materials during construction. The proposed Project is tentatively scheduled to begin demolition and construction in 2013, and estimates six weeks for demolition followed by a year of construction of buildings and additional time for interior finishes on residential buildings. (See Chapter 2.2 Project Description for details on project components.) Table 3.1 shows that estimated construction emissions generated by the Project exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction - related ROG in 2013 and 2014. The Project construction would generate less than significant levels of Nox, PMIo, and PM2.5. Additionally, since BAAQMD best management practices, listed under Air Quality in Section 1.4, are required as part of project approval, impacts due to construction related PMIo and PM2.5 (fugitive dust) pollutants would be less significant. thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the Air District to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA before recommending their use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District had complied with CEQA. The court's order permits the Air District to develop and disseminate these CEQA Guidelines, as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance. Although the BAAQMD's adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQMD's Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. 3 California Emissions Estimator Model, Technical Paper: Methodology Reasoning and Policy Development of the California Emissions Estimator Model, July 2011, www.caleemod.com, Accessed November 19, 2012. 3 -7 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Table 3.1: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance (Pounds Per Day) Reactive Organic Nitrogen Oxides Particulate Matter Fine Particulate Matter Daily Emission Gases (ROG) (NOx) (PM to exhaust) (PM2.5 exhaust) Year 2013 (Ibs /day) 76.9 40.3 2.1 2.1 Year 2014 (Ibs /day) 72.6 12.9 0.7 0.7 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Notes: Bold text shows emissions greater than threshold. Refer to Appendix for all emission assumptions. Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012 Since the majority (91 percent) of construction - related ROG emissions is due to area sources (paint VOC levels and consumer products), the following mitigation measure would reduce constructions - related ROG emission impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Project applicant to include the use of maximum 0 g/L emission VOC paint for interior surfaces and 100 g/L emission VOC paint for exterior surface in the construction contract. Table 3.2 shows that constructions - related emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels with the mitigation measure. Table 3.2: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions With Mitigation Measures as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance (Pounds Per Day) Reactive Organic Nitrogen Oxides Particulate Matter Fine Particulate Matter Description Gases (ROG) (NOx) (PM to exhaust) (PM2.5 exhaust) Year 2013 (Ibs /day) 13.7 46.6 2.1 2.1 Year 2014 (Ibs /day) 9.4 18.3 0.7 0.7 BAAQMD Daily Threshold 54 54 82 54 Notes: Refer to Appendix for all emission assumptions. Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 201 1; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012 Operations- Related Impacts BAAQMD provides thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for project operations including reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM,o), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) resulting from driving, operating landscape equipment, and heating. Where a proposed Project replaces an existing emission source that is in operation at the beginning of environmental analysis, BAAQMD recommends subtracting existing emissions from the estimated emissions to obtain the baseline operations emissions for the proposed Project.' Table 3.3 shows that operations - related emissions generated by the proposed Project would be within the thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, PM10 (exhaust), and PM2.5 (exhaust). Thus, the Project's impacts due to operations - related emissions would be less than significant. 4 Kirk, Allison, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Phone conversation, December 19, 2012. 3 -8 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3.3: Operations - Related Emissions as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance at Project Level (Pounds Per Day and Tons Per Year)' Reactive Organic Gases Nitrogen Particulate Matter Fine Particulate Matter Description (ROG) Oxides (NOx) (PM,o exhaust) (PM2.5 exhaust) Pounds per day (lbs /day) Project 66.7 55.9 2.2 2.2 Existing Use 31.5 39.5 1.4 1.4 Project minus Existing (Baseline) 35.2 16.3 0.9 0.9 BAAQMD Daily Threshold 54 54 82 54 Tons per year (tpy) Project 12.2 10.2 0.4 0.4 Existing Use 5.8 7.2 0.3 0.3 Project minus Existing (Baseline) 6.2 3.0 0.22 0.22 BAAQMD Annual Threshold 10 10 15 10 Notes: I. Refer to Appendix for all emission assumptions. 2. Some numbers may appear not to add up due to rounding. Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012. BAAQMD also establishes the following screening criteria for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions: • Project is consistent with congestion management program • Project does not increase traffic volume at affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles trips per hour; and • Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below -grade roadway). Since the Project requires a transportation demand management (TDM) program per Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the Project is consistent with the regional congestion management program. The traffic impact study shows that the Project would result in fewer than 44,000 vehicle trips per hour at any of the studied intersections.' Additionally, the primary intersections analyzed for the Project do not include intersections with limited vertical or horizontal mixing. Per the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, "if all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project's air pollutant emissions." Since the proposed Project meets all three screening criteria for CO, the Project is less than significant in CO emission and does not require further analysis. 5 Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real, Figure 5 Project Traffic Volumes. 3 -9 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist c) Cumulative Pollutant Impact The Bay Area is designated as an attainment area for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Per the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, the Bay Area (as of 2009 data) is at non- attainment status for the following pollutants: • 1 -hour Ozone (State standard of 0.09 ppm) • 8 -hour Ozone (State standard of 0.070 ppm and national standard of 0.081 ppm) • 24 -hour PM2.5 (National standard of 36 µg /m3 ) • Annual PM2.5 (State standard of 50 µg /m3) • 24 -hour PM10 (State standard of 50 µg /m3) • Annual PM10 (State standard of 20 µg /m3) Table 3.4 summarizes pollutant concentrations in the Project vicinity for the past three years as compared to the national and California air pollution standards that were not met by the region. The table shows that the State and national standard for ozone was exceeded once in 2010 in Redwood City, and the national standard for the maximum 24 -hour concentration of fine particulate matter (PMZ.S) was exceeded every year for the past three years, while respirable particulate matter (PM,o) remained within State and national standards. 3 -10 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3.4: Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Vicinity (2009 -201 1)" Standard 2009 2010 2011 San Redwood San Redwood San Redwood Pollutant Cap Not Francisco City Francisco City Francisco City Ozone (ppb)' Max. I -Hr 0.09 - 72 87 79 113 70 76 Cal I -Hr Days - - 0 0 0 2 0 0 Max. 8-Hr 0.07 0.081 56 63 51 77 54 94 Nat 8 -Hr Days - - 0 0 0 1 0 0 Cal 8 -Hr Days - - 0 0 0 1 0 0 PM 10 (pg /m3)° Annual Avg 20 - 18.7 _E 19.9 - 19.5 - Max 24 -Hr 50 - 36 - 40 - 46 - Nat Days - - 0 - 0 - 0 - Cal Days - - 0 - 0 - 0 - PM2.s (Pg /m3) Max 24 -Hr - 36 35.6 31.7 45.3 36.5 47.5 39.7 Nat Days - - 1 0 3 1 2 1 Annual Avg 50 - 9.7 8.7 10.5 8.3 9.5 8.7 Notes: Bold text indicates days exceeding standards. A. This table only includes non - attainment pollutants for the Bay Area. Data represents summaries for nearest two monitoring stations: Arkansas Street in San Francisco and Redwood City. B. California standards are nominally "not to be exceeded," but, other than for annual standards, in practice allow approximately I exceedance per year. C. ppm = parts by volume per million of air. D. fag /m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. E. PM 10 monitoring was discontinued on June 30, 2008 at Redwood City and is not available. Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality Data Statistics, www.arb.cog.gov /adam, Accessed December 10, 2012. BAAQMD annual air quality summaries, http: / /www.baagmd.gov/ Divisions/ Communications - and - Outreach /Air - Quality -in- the -Bay- Area /Air- Quality- Summories.aspx, 201 1, Accessed December 1 1, 2012. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommends that cumulative air quality impacts from criteria air pollutants for a project level analysis be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual thresholds, which were developed to identify a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant regional air quality impact. Since daily and annual impacts due to construction and operations - related pollutions remain less than significant with mitigation as shown in previous Section (a), cumulative criteria pollutant impacts remain less than significant. 3-11 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist d) Impact to Sensitive Receptors As discussed earlier, the proposed Project does not include industrial uses and, therefore, is not a source of substantial pollutant concentrations. However, the proposed Project includes new residential units, and creates new sensitive receptors. Thus, this section includes analysis on impacts of existing toxic sources to future residents. Examples of toxic sources include stationary sources, high traffic roads, freeways, rail yards, and ports.' Since the Project site is not located within 1,000 feet of freeways, rail yards or ports, the following analysis compares health risks of new sensitive receptors to BAAQMD thresholds for stationary sources and high traffic roads. The proposed Project includes residential, retail, and office uses. These uses may involve the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products in the form of routine janitorial and maintenance supplies. Storage of these materials is required to comply with State and local standards intended to protect the public health and safety and will not pose a hazard. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts regarding pollutants. BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May, 2011) establishes project -level thresholds for risk and hazards for new receptors when considering stationary sources individually and cumulatively. BAAQMD provides a Google Earth TM file with locations of existing permitted stationary sources for San Mateo County. Currently, two stationary sources are located within 1,000 feet. However, since Brentwood Auto Service, located within the Project area will be replaced with the proposed Project, only one stationary source, a generator at Lowe's, remains to be analyzed.' Table 3.5 shows all risks at Lowe's are within BAAQMD thresholds for individual projects, and impacts of pollutants to sensitive receptors are less than significant. BAAQMD establishes a screening analysis for estimating risk and hazard impacts from California highways and surface streets to receptors such as future residences of the proposed Project. Interstate -280, I -380, US -101 are located more than 1,000 feet away from the Project site, and do not pose health or hazard impacts as defined by BAAQMD screening analysis. Other roadways concerning this analysis includes El Camino Real (also known as State Route 82), which runs north -south along the Project's western boundary, and carries an annual average daily traffic of about 41,500 vehicles per day north of I- 380, including trucks. Additionally, the Project is estimated to generate 11,475 vehicle trips daily upon completion. The residential units closest to El Camino Real, as shown in conceptual site plans, are located approximately 60 feet from the road edge. Table 3.5 shows risks for receptors located 50 feet east and 20 feet above El Camino Real per BAAQMD Highway Screening Analysis Tool for San Mateo County.' Table 3.5 shows that cancer risk, exposure to fine particulate matter, chronic hazard, and acute hazards are less than significant for individual sources and when considered cumulatively. 6 CAPCOA, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects. ' Allison Kirk, BAAQMD, Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry Form, Email correspondence, December 10, 2012. 8 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Tools and Methodology, http: / /www.baagmd.gov /Divisions /Planning- and - Research /CEQA- GUIDELINES /Tools- and - Methodology.aspx, Accessed November 19, 2012. 3 -12 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3.5: Existing Permitted Stationary Pollutant Source (Within 1,000 Feet of the Proposed Project) and Roadway Pollutant Source Compared to BAAQMD Thresholds Distance Cancer Chronic Acute from pro- Plant Source Risk in a PM2.5 Hazard Hazard ject (Ft) # Name Address UTM E UTM N million (ug /m') Index Index 450 1320 Lowe's 1340 El 2 HTW, Inc Camino (Stationary Real, San Source)' Bruno 550928 4165958 0.41 0.002 0.68 -- EI Camino Real (Roadway) 4.58 0.066 0.006 0.012 BAAQMD Threshold — Individual Project 10 0.3 1.0 1.0 Cumulative Sources 4.98 0.068 0.686 0.012 BAAQMD Threshold — Cumulative 100 0.8 10 -- Notes: I. Data for Lowe's reflects detailed adjustments per completed HRSA by BAAQMD after screening values from BAAQMD and Google Earth kmz files were identified. Source: Allison Kirk, BAAQMD, Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry Form, Email correspondence, December 10, 2012 and BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May, 2011), Google Earth, 2012, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Tools and Methodology, http: / /www.baagmd.govI Divisions /Planning- and - Research /CEQA- GUIDELINES /Tools -and- Methodology.aspx, Accessed November 19, 2012. Additionally, the proposed Project incorporates BAAQMD recommended best management practices for reducing exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) from roadways such as locating residential units away from major roadways by placing them along Huntington Avenue instead of El Camino Real and by incorporating street trees along El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue and throughout the Project site boundary and surface parking area as well as the podium level (See Figures 2.6 to 2.9). Furthermore, the proposed Project includes phased developments to build half of the residential units at a later phase. Thus, risks due to pollutant sources would be less than significant. e) Odors The proposed Project includes retail, office, parking, and residential uses and does not include any uses associated with unpleasant odors such as landfills or manufacturing plants. Thus, the following analysis regards odor impacts to future residents. BAAQMD establishes a threshold of significance for odors as five confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years. Since existing uses do not include sensitive odor receptors, there are no odor complaints to date. For future residences, industrial uses and manufacturing plants located east of the Centennial Trail present potential odor sources. Since the prevailing wind for this location is from the west most of the year,9 odors from existing industrial uses located east of the Centennial Trail are not expected to drift to the proposed Project site. Thus, odor impacts are less than significant. 9 Windfinder.com, Wind and Weather Statistics for San Francisco Airport, http:/ /www.windfinder.com /windstats /windstatistic san francisco.htm. Accessed December 10, 2012. 3 -13 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.4 Biological Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) 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? b) 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 California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION a, b) Biological Resources According to the South ECR GPA EIR, the California Gap Analysis designates the Project site and the surrounding area as urbanized, without sensitive habitats. According to the Gap Analysis, there are no known riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or wildlife corridors within the Project site or in the surrounding area. The South ECR GPA EIR identified three special status species that had the potential to occur within the South ECR GPA boundary. However, there are no habitats within the Project site that would support these species, and the observed occurrences of these species are outside the Project site. Therefore, there are no impacts on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, or on riparian habitat. 3 -14 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration c, d) Wetlands and Migratory Wildlife Corridors The Project site and surrounding area is a highly urbanized area which does not contain any migratory wildlife corridors. There are no protected wetlands within the Project site or the surrounding area. Therefore, there will be no impact with regard to protected wetlands and the movement of wildlife. e, f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Plans There are no trees on the Project site that meet the criteria for protection or any local ordinances or policies protecting other biological resources that would apply to the Project site. The Project site is not in an area subject to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, there will be no impact with regard to local policies and ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans. 3 -15 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.5 Cultural Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ✓ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ✓ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ✓ interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION a) Historic Resources Section 15064.5 defines historical resources as the following: • Listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; • Included in a local register or historical resource (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g); • Identified in an historical resources survey (meets the criteria of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g)); or • Meets the California Register of Historical Resources criteria (Public Resources Code Section 5024. 1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 or Section 5020.1(j)). The historic -era use of the area within the vicinity of the Project site began early with the Spanish, with the route of El Camino Real as a principal thoroughfare from the late 18`x' century to present day. Map review by Northwest Information Center (NIC) reveals that an 1858 map for Rancho Buriburi depicts El Camino Real and several houses along the road, but does not depict them within the Project site. Review of 1896 and 1915 15- minute San Mateo topographic quadrangles do not depict any buildings or structures within the Project site.10 NIC records search, which includes listings of California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists that one of two buildings located on 190 El Camino Real (DOE - 41-96- 0165 - 0000), as having undergone Section 106 review and determined ineligible for the National 10 Much, Bryan, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Record search results for the proposed project at 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, November 19, 2012. 3 -16 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Register.12 NIC recommends further review of buildings older than 40 years of age at this site. In reviewing local surveys, the City's latest historic preservation survey of 1985 -1986, which identifies architectural and historic resources of South San Francisco, and an updated Citywide List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources (updated November 13, 2002) per the City, show that these buildings were not listed as eligible for designated or potential historic resources. 13 Thus, there would be no impact to historic resources. b) Archaeological Resources Record search by the NIC shows that at the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in this portion of the peninsula were speakers of the Costanoan or Ohlone language, part of the Utian language family. Based on mission registers of tribal name and locations, the Project site is described as being located within the area controlled by Urebure, and that the people of the San Bruno Creek area just south of San Bruno Mountain lived as a single village group. There are no Native American resources in or adjacent to the Project site referenced in ethnographic literature. Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in close proximity to sources of water, near the bay margin and its associated wetlands, and near ecotones and other productive environments. The proposed Project site is situated on terraces above the broad marshland and wetlands that formed around the mouths of Colma Creek and San Bruno Creek Intermittent streams once flowed adjacent to the site, and portions of the site contain deposits that have been undifferentiated alluvial deposit from the Holocene. Given the correlation of these factors, there is a moderately high potential of unrecorded Native American resources buried with no surface indications within the site. The proposed Project site has been highly developed and is presently covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection. Thus, the Project could significantly impact archaeological resources. Mitigation CULT -1: The Project Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the grading and construction contracts as a condition of approval of permit: • Prior to ground disturbance, the depths of impact for the proposed Project be adequately determined to assess locations that have the potential to disturb sensitive landforms. This information should be compared with archival research to determine the appropriate locations for geo- archaeological testing. A report containing "next- step" recommendations should be provided." Prior to the initiation of construction or ground- disturbing activities, the Project Applicant will ensure that all construction personnel involved in ground- disturbing activities shall receive environmental training from a qualified archaeologist that will include discussion of what 12 Much, Bryan, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Record search results for the proposed project at 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, November 19, 2012. 13 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey 1985 -1986: A Comprehensive Study of History and Architecture, City of South San Francisco Community Services Department. 15 Ibid. 3 -17 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist constitutes cultural resources, the possibility of buried cultural resources, how to recognize such possible buried cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are encountered. Project Applicant shall ensure that project personnel involved in ground disturbing activities are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat - affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, ceramics or other items often found in refuse deposits and buried features, such as privy pits and foundations; If unknown potential or unique archaeological resources are encountered during construction, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (f), "provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction" should be instituted. Work should be temporarily halted within 50 feet or as deemed appropriate by the archaeologist and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the find and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources." If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the Project proponent and /or lead agency and the qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City, which shall assure implementation of appropriate measures recommended by the archaeologist. The City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) such as plans for methodical excavation of the portions of the site shall be instituted and results in detailed technical reports for submittal to the Northwest Information Center. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while measure for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. All significant archaeological materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program report prepared by the qualified archaeologist for submittal to the Northwest Information Center. With this mitigation, the Project's impacts to archaeological resources will be less than significant. c) Paleontological Resources or Geologic Features Per the South ECR GPA EIR, the University of California Museum of Paleontology website showed that Equus fossil was found in the City of South San Francisco without providing the exact location. The South ECR GPA EIR assessed that the lithology of the fossil is identified as mudstone, which is located in areas near the bay and in the San Bruno Mountains, areas outside of the South ECR GPA boundary. Thus, it is unlikely that fossils would be located within the Project site. However, because the site is developed and covered with asphalt, it is difficult to assess the impact of excavation and grading during construction, and the Project may impact paleontological resources. Mitigation CULT -2: In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find or as deemed appropriate by a paleontologist shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]). A qualified paleontologist shall document the 3 -18 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. With this mitigation, the Project's impacts to paleontological resources will be less than significant. d) Human Remains As stated in subsection A, the proposed Project site has been highly developed and is presently covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection regarding human remains. Thus, the proposed Project may have significant impacts to human remains. Mitigation CULT -3: In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during construction or ground - breaking activities, all work shall immediately halt and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, and following the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease within a 50 -foot radius of the find until appropriate arrangements are made. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously. With this mitigation, the Project's impacts to human remains will be less than significant. 3 -19 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.6 Geology and Soils Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential ✓ substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ✓ delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including ✓ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ✓ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ✓ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ✓ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ✓ 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ✓ the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 3 -20 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION a) Seismic Hazards i. Earthquake Fault Rupture The Project site is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults traverse the Project site.16 Thus, potential impacts related to surface fault rupture would be less than significant. ii. Ground Shaking As the Project site is located approximately two miles east of San Andreas Fault, the nearest known active fault, the Project site will, on average, experience stronger earthquake shaking more frequently.17 Although intense shaking may damage buildings, building codes and construction standards established by the California Building Code and contained in Title 24 of the CCR are required and will help prevent extensive structural damage due to seismic - related ground shaking. Therefore, potential impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant. iii. Liquefaction ABAG designates the portion of the Project site along South Spruce Avenue as an area of high liquefaction susceptibility during an earthquake and the remaining area as very low liquefaction susceptibility.18 Mandatory compliance with existing building codes and construction standards established in the California Building Code, the requirements of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, and policies contained in the City of South San Francisco General Plan would reduce seismic - related liquefaction to less than significant levels. iv. Landslides ABAG designates the Project site as "flatland. "19 There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore, there will be no impacts with respect to landslides. b, c, d) Soils According to the Phase I Environmental Assessment, the Project site is underlain by fill materials to a depth of four to 11.5 feet below grade and by alluvium to the maximum depth explored, 65 feet below grade 21. The existing Project site is a developed site with three single -story buildings on a parking lot. The site is situated 25 to 35 feet above mean sea level and the local topography slopes from north to northeast. Per the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil 16 ABAG, http: / /gis.abag .ca.gov /Website /FaultZones /, Accessed November 1, 2012. 17 ABAG, http: // gis. abag. ca .gov /Website /ShakingPotential /, Accessed November 1, 2012. is ABAG, http: / /gis. abag.ca.gov / Website /LiquefactionSusceptibility /, Accessed November 1, 2012. 19 ABAG, http: // gis. abag. ca. gov /website /LandslideDistribution /, Accessed November 1, 2012. 2° AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, November 4, 2004. 3 -21 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Survey, the Project site consists of "urban land," consisting of manmade soils and fill material that are not sources of topsoil.21 Thus, there would be no impact to loss of topsoil. Erosion hazards would be highest during construction activities, when soils at the Project site may be sensitive to disturbances caused by construction traffic and to changes in moisture content during wet weather periods. The federal Clean Water Action Section (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program [ NPDES]) requires every permit applicant for a site of one acre or more of Project area to obtain a NPDES Construction General Permit and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) prior to construction. Best management practices included in SWPPP are designed to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to control erosion and effectively manage runoff and retain sediment on -site during construction. All Projects must also comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program ( STOPPP), which addresses pollution control during construction and operation. Project Applicant must incorporate best management practices of SWPPP and STOPPP as a condition of approval (See Section 1.4). California Code Regulation, Title 24, Part 2, the California Building Code (Chapter 15.08 of the City's Municipal Code) establishes standards for structural and soil requirements. The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.08.140), requires the Project Applicant to submit a soils engineering report or a geotechnical report with a grading permit (See Section 1.4). The soils engineering report or a geotechnical report includes detailed information on existing soils and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures and for building on potentially unstable soil or expansive soil. Mandatory compliance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code and NPDES General Construction Permit requirements would reduce impacts due to soil erosion, unstable soil, or expansive soil to less than significant levels. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks The City is currently served by the City's municipal sewer system and future projects will continue to be required to be connected to the City's system. Therefore, there would be no impact on soils due to septic systems. 21 Natural Resources Conservation Service. San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California Survey Area Data. Web Soil Survey website: http://websoilsunLey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed February 19, 2013. 3 -22 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ✓ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ✓ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION a – b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions BAAQMD's GHG threshold is defined in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), a metric that accounts for the emission from various greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential. CalEEMod was used to quantify greenhouse gas emissions at the project level. See Section 3.3 Air Quality for description of CalEEMod and Appendix for detailed calculation output and assumptions. Constructions - Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Though BAAQMD does not establish thresholds for constructions - related emissions, the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines (Updated May 2011) requires CEQA documents to disclose this information. Table 3.6 shows that a total of 1,764 metric tons of CO2e would be emitted over two years of construction. Table 3.6: Constructions - Related Greenhouse Gas Emission (Metric Tons of CO2e Per Service Population Per Year) By Year Total Emission (MT CO2e /Yr) 2013 1,243 2014 511 Total 1,764 Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhotia, 2012 Per the South ECR GPA EIR, a total of 526,766 metric tons of CO2e was generated in South San Francisco in 2005 and a total of 517,975 metric tons of CO2e is expected by 2020 with state mandates. � Since the maximum yearly constructions - related greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Project represents 0.2% of total greenhouse gas emission estimates for the City, the impact would be less than significant. 22 South GPA EIR, Table 3.6 -6. 3 -23 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Operations- Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Where a proposed Project replaces an existing emission source that is in operation at the beginning of environmental analysis, BAAQMD recommends subtracting existing emissions from the estimated emissions for the proposed Project to obtain baseline emission. Table 3.7 shows that the per service population greenhouse gas emissions level for the Project is within the BAAQMD threshold, and impact would be less than significant. Table 3.7: Operations - Related Greenhouse Gas Emission as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance at Project Level (Metric Tons of CO2e Per Service Population Per Year) Total Emission Per Service Population Description (MT CO2e/Yr) Service Population Emission (MT CO2e /SP /Yr) Project 10,288 -- -- Existing Use 5,868 -- -- Project After Subtracting Existing Emissions (Baseline) 4,420 1,453' 3.04 BAAQMD Threshold -- -- 4.6 Notes: 1. Service Population Calculation is based on Department of Finance population projection rate for 2012 of 3.044 persons per household, yielding 867 persons for the proposed Project. Employee projection is based on the South ECR GPA employment projection rate of 400 sf /employee for commercial (total and 375 sf /employee for office use. This yields 586 employees for the proposed Project, and a total of 1,453 service population (employee + residents). Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012. Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact As the Project's CO2e emissions would not exceed BAAQMD threshold levels, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions or a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows tiering and streamlining the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for a project- specific environmental document by referencing existing programmatic review such as the South ECR GPA EIR. As described in the South ECR GPA EIR, the Amendment will increase total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in South San Francisco compared to existing conditions. However, due to emission reductions that would result from State regulations and the implementation of the Amendment, emissions in 2020 (the buildout year for South ECR GPA) are not expected to exceed existing levels. The South ECR GPA EIR recognized the impact as cumulatively significant; however, the Amendment's contribution was less than considerable. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA policies and EIR. In addition, the Project would not result in any new additional impacts related to greenhouse gas that were not identified or analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding impacts of greenhouse gas emissions or plan consistency. 3 -24 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ✓ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? DISCUSSION a — d) Hazardous Materials The following analyzes risks regarding hazardous materials for existing uses on Project site, historical uses, and proposed uses as part of the Project. According to AEI's Phase I Environmental Assessment, the Project site is subject to the routine use, and disposal of hazardous materials or petroleum products in the form of solvents, petroleum -based fluids, 3 -25 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist and aboveground hazardous substance or petroleum storage tanks used for vehicle repair operations at Firestone, photodeveloping chemicals at Longs Drugs, and a propane container at Safeway.23 The materials appear to be properly stored and the materials observed did not appear to pose a hazard to the project site. Furthermore, these materials are contained within the site and do not involve transportation of or emission that would affect surrounding properties including schools. Though the Project site is not listed as a hazardous site per Government Code Section 65962.5,24 the Phase I Environmental Assessment reveals former uses that may have resulted in residual concentrations of subsurface soil contamination on site from former vehicle repair uses prior to Firestone and an open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site from former Unocal service station use that is currently undergoing groundwater monitoring at a quarterly basis to obtain case closure .2' The Assessment report shows that impacts from former leaking hydraulic lifts at Firestone appear to be less than significant, but recommends continuous monitoring for presence of volatile organic compounds and heavy range hydrocarbon concentration through groundwater sampling and analysis at existing monitoring wells. Currently five wells are being monitored (four of them twice a year and one of them once a year) at the former Unocal service station site. The monitoring wells are located in front and behind the Firestone building, where proposed commercial Building A and a portion of surface parking area will be located. Based on the latest groundwater monitoring report by Stantec, which shows results of groundwater monitoring and sampling as well as analysis from soil samples performed on September 20, 2011 and January 6, 2012, hydrocarbons concentrations such as gasoline range organics were reported as high as 62,000 micrograms per liter (ug /L) with depth of highest soil impact ranging from 10 feet to 40 feet .26 The groundwater monitoring report shows that the highest concentration of gasoline range organics is located just west of the service bays at Firestone and decreases in concentration with less than 100 ug /L detected at a location 30 feet from the monitoring well MW -1R located west of the Firestone service bays. (See Figure 5 of Stantec Report in the Appendix). Since the areas identified by the Stantec report as having concentration of hydrocarbons are not proposed to include residential units, the following mitigation measures prevent potential leakage of contaminated soil into future ground -level retail uses. Mitigation Measure HAZ -1: Prior to approval of a building permit, obtain case closure at Chevron Facility 306441 (Former Unocal Service Station No. 6980) located at 190 -192 El Camino Real, South San Francisco (Assessor's Parcel Number 014 - 183 -110). If case closure cannot be obtained, the following must be completed as a condition of approval: • Prepare and implement a remediation plan and gain project approval from San Mateo County Health Systems Groundwater Protection System (SMCHS -GPP). 23 AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170 -192 El Camino Real, November 4, 2004. 24 California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, "Cortese" List, http: / /www.calel2a.ca.gov /sitecleanul2/corteselist /SectionA.htm, accessed December 4, 2012. 2s Ibid. 26 Stantec, First Quarter 2012 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report: Chevron 306441 (Former Unocal No. 6980) 190 -192 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, May 15, 2012. 3 -26 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration • To ensure safety from potential harm to construction crew during excavation and construction, the Project applicant will determine the depth of soil contamination from the latest groundwater monitoring report for the site of former Unocal service prior to demolition and grading at the Project site. Appropriate safety and engineering controls will be taken per the Health and Safety Code (Cal OSHA regulations California Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect construction crew and the public. • To mitigate potential migration of volatile contamination to indoor air, the Project will include active or passive vapor control systems over the area of the former Unocal site (proposed Building A area) as shown in Figure 3 -1 as approved with a vapor mitigation system approved by SMCHS- GPP. Figure 3.1: Remediation Compound Location i ■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■l�1 �1l 1i■■■ ■■■Ik ■ .i ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ !■■ rt■■■■■■ _ ■ ■■ fib.■ � ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�i�� rtr 51 100.1 i�o� ■ ■■ i ... tiiii, 7,50[} 7,500 1 42.0 1:013 8 3( With these mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts involving hazardous materials to the public, environment, or schools. e — fl Airport The Project is subject to Part 77, Subpart C for the San Francisco Airport, which establishes height criteria at airport approach zones, the proposed Project would not exceed any height limits established by the most recently adopted San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO 3 -27 T pQRQ lP UWI H IO...., l ENEEM -noN COMPOUND I Stantec on P rw LOCAMN I ...... ..... With these mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts involving hazardous materials to the public, environment, or schools. e — fl Airport The Project is subject to Part 77, Subpart C for the San Francisco Airport, which establishes height criteria at airport approach zones, the proposed Project would not exceed any height limits established by the most recently adopted San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO 3 -27 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist ALUCP, October 2012). The Part 77 map allows 100 to 150 feet above ground level (AGL) on the Project site and the Project proposes a maximum height of 90 feet (See Figures 2.12 to 2.22) .27 The Project site is located within Zone 4 Outer Approach /Departure Zone, but does not propose uses incompatible in such zones such as hospitals, schools, or stadiums. 2' Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts regarding airport hazards. g) Emergency Response In 1995, the City prepared an Emergency Response Plan integrated with the San Mateo Area/ County Multi- Hazard Functional Plan. The City's plan is in compliance with existing law. There will be no new impacts in regards to emergency response. h) Fire The Project site is not adjacent to wildlands; therefore there will be no new impact in regards to wildland fires. 27 SFO ALUCP, October 2012, Exhibit IV -7 Critical Aeronautical Surfaces 28 SFO ALUCP, October 2012, Exhibit IV -7 Safety Compatibility Zones and Table IV -2 Safety Compatibility Criteria 3 -28 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? IN N N j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ✓ 3 -29 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist DISCUSSION a, f) Water Quality The City requires the Developer to prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and construction as part of its stormwater management program, as applied through standard City conditions of project approval by the City Engineer of the City's Public Works Department. Additionally, adherence to federal, state, and local laws would ensure that impacts will be less than significant. b) Groundwater The Project site receives water supply from existing local infrastructure. The proposed Project would rely on water service from the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Per the Cal Water 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of South San Francisco, a historical maximum of 1,500 AFY has been pumped from the Westside basin to supplement purchased water. The 2010 UWMP projects a 2020 service population of 58,297, which accommodates the population projection estimates for South ECR GPA EIR as discussed in Section 3.17(d). Cal Water is working on installing additional wells in the South San Francisco District serving this Project area, and Project impact to groundwater would be less than significant. A "will serve" letter has been obtained by Cal Water stating that, while the specific requirements cannot be determined until utility plans, water demand, and fire department requirements are submitted to the Company, the Company is prepared to provide water service to the project. c, d, e) Drainage A large portion of the Project site is currently paved. Paved portions of the site include driveways and surface parking. The portion of the site that is currently not paved includes landscaped areas within and surrounding surface parking. Based on the storm water management concept drawings by Pacific Land Services (See Figure 2.27), the Project would provide a total of 68,200 square feet of landscaped pervious surface compared to 32,000 square feet of existing pervious surface. Thus, the Project would not increase drainage or runoff Additionally, the preliminary utility plan shows that new stormwater infiltration basins will be installed at landscaped areas at surface parking lots and along the street frontage (See Figure 2.26). The Project site is currently served by municipal storm sewers and is located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone 29; however, the site is not subject to hydromodification since the majority of Colma Creek is lined. Furthermore, the Project applicant is required to submit a SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer of the City's Public Works Department prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP is required to include stormwater pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Stormwater Coordinator. The City also requires projects to incorporate BMPs to help reduce stormwater runoff. Adherence to federal, state, and local laws would ensure that impacts will be less than significant. 29 Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Issued Flood Maps, https: / /msc.fema.gov /webaEp /wcs/ stores /servlet /FemaWelcomeView, Accessed November 1, 2012. 3 -30 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration g, h, i) Flood Hazards Review of the Flood Insurance Rate map, published by FEMA and dated October 2012, indicated a small portion of the Project site facing South Spruce Avenue is located in Zone X, areas outside of the 100 -year flood zone.30 No Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone. The Project site is not located near a levy or a dam. There will be no impacts in regards to flood hazards. j) Tsunami Hazards 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 approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a 500 -year tsunami.31 The Project site, approximately 25 to 35 feet above mean sea level '32 would be too high for inundation by a 500 -year tsunami and would be outside any potential tsunami hazard zone. There will be no impacts in regards to tsunami hazards. 30 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Map Service Center, Flood Insurance Rate Map Item ID 06081CO043E San Mateo County Unincorporated and Incorporated, http: / /mapl .msc.fema.gov /idms /IntraView.cgi ?KEY= 39891326& IFIT =1, Accessed November 1, 2012. 31 City of South San Francisco, General Plan, October 1999, p. 250. 32 AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170 -192 El Camino Real, November 4, 2004. 3 -31 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.10 Land Use and Planning Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? ✓ b) Conflict 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ✓ plan or natural community conservation plan? DISCUSSION a) Division of an Established Community The Project is compatible with development north and south of the Project site along El Camino Real in terms of land use patterns. Currently, development along El Camino Real in the southern areas of South San Francisco consists of a mix of residential, commercial, and office buildings. The proposed Project has a height and density similar to the projects surrounding of the Project site — two -story commercial buildings along El Camino Real (west) and South Spruce Avenue (north) and taller and wider buildings along Huntington Avenue (east) and south of the Project site. The proposed Project would contribute to compatible land use and urban design patterns along El Camino Real, resulting in a more cohesive community. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on dividing an established community. b — c) Conflicts with Plans The Project is consistent with the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) designation in the City's South ECR GPA and the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes a minimum height of 25 feet and a maximum height of 80 feet with an additional 20 feet height increase for the incorporation of TDM measures. The most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (October 2012) limits buildings to 100 to 150 feet critical aeronautical surface height at the Project site. The Project proposes two story retail /office buildings of 39 feet high and five -story mixed -use buildings at maximum 74 feet high with a 90 foot high tower element which would not exceed the ALUCP height limits. The Project does not propose land uses incompatible in Airport Outer Approach /Departure Zones per the ALUCP. The Project site is not in an area subject to any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. There will be no impact with regard to local policies and ordinances and habitat conservation plans. 3 -32 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.1 1 Mineral Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ✓ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ✓ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION a — b) Mineral Resources There are no mineral resources located on the Project site. Therefore, there are no impacts on mineral resources. 3 -33 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.12 Noise Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact A. NOISE — Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION a, e, f) Consistency with Plans, Ordinances, and Applicable Standards J J J J J General Policy GP -53 of the latest San Francisco Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, October 2012 (SFO ALUCP) states that a project application completed prior to the adoption of the latest ALUCP and located within the CNEL 70 dB contour of the previous 1996 Compatibility Land Use Plan (CLUP) will be subject to the 1996 CLUP's 2006 noise contour. Because the proposed Project application was deemed complete by the City on June 19, 2012, the proposed Project is subject to the 2006 noise contours of the 1996 CLUP. Per Exhibit III -1 of the SFO ALUCP, the southwestern portion of the Project site is located in the CNEL 70 to 75 dB (1996 CLUP Noise Compatibiltiy Zone Boundary Forecast 2006 NEM) noise contour range and the remaining area in the 65 to 70 dB range.33 Figure 2.7 shows the boundary of the 70 to 75 dB noise contour area and that ss C /CAG, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, "Table IV -I Noise /Land Use Compatibility Criteria" and "Exhibit III -1 Area Affected by Updated CNEL 70 dB Contour ", October 2012. 3 -34 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration residential units are located in the 65 to 70 dB range. Per the ALUCP, commercial use is compatible without restrictions in this 70 dB to 75 dB noise range. Multi - family residential use is conditionally compatible in the 65 to 70 dB range with the following provisions included as condition of building permit approval:35 • Project Applicant to provide an acoustical study provided by a professional acoustical engineer that provides mitigation features to achieve an interior noise level of maximum CNEL 45 from exterior noise per California Code of Regulations Title 21, Section 5014. • Provide notice to owners of real property near the Airport of the proximity to SFO and of the potential impacts that could occur on the property from airport /aircraft operations • The property owners shall grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco. If the proposed development is not built, then, upon notice by the local permitting authority, SFO shall record a notice of termination of the avigation easement." Adherence to existing State and local requirements will ensure that impacts are less than significant. b, d) Groundborne Noise and Vibration Construction - related noise and vibration is considered a short -term impact associated with demolition, site preparation, grading, and other construction - related activities. Construction activities associated with the Project would be temporary in nature and related impacts would be short -term. Typical noise levels from construction equipment range from 80 to 90 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment such as pile drivers. The South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.050(d) restricts construction noise to weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m. Adherence with the City's Code will ensure that construction related noise impacts are less than significant. c) Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and resulting Environmental Impact Report. The Project would not result in any new additional impacts to ambient noise levels other than those identified in the South ECR GPA EIR. Additionally, South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.030 restricts exterior ambient noise in higher density residential and commercial areas to 55 dB from ten p.m. to seven a.m. and 65 dB from seven a.m. to 10 p.m. Therefore, there is no impact and no further analysis is needed. 35 C /CAG, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, "Table IV -I Noise /Land Use Compatibility Criteria" and "Figure D -3 Forecast 2015 and 2020 Noise Exposure ", October 2012 36 C /CAG, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, "Table IV -I Noise /Land Use Compatibility Criteria" and "Figure D -3 Forecast 2015 and 2020 Noise Exposure ", October 2012. 3 -35 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.13 Population and Housing Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ✓ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ✓ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ✓ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION a) Population Growth The South ECR GPA EIR projected an additional 2,410 people in the Planning Area in 2020. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The proposed Project would not increase the population or result in any new additional impacts beyond what was projected and analyzed by the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding population growth. b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People The existing use does not contain residential uses. The Project will result in new housing. Therefore, there is no impact in regards to displacement of housing or people. 3 -36 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.14 Public Services Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ✓ ii) Police protection? ✓ iii) Schools? ✓ iv) Parks? ✓ v) Other public facilities? ✓ DISCUSSION a) Public Services i. Fire The Project site will be served by Fire Station #61, located at 480 North Canal Street, 1.2 miles northeast of the Project site. If the current level of staffing is maintained, the South San Francisco Fire Department will be able to meet the current National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard of one firefighter per 1,000 residents. It is not anticipated that new facilities or an expansion of existing facilities is required to serve the Project. In addition, the proposed Project will have to adhere to General Plan policies as well as the California Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and the City's Municipal Code. Given this, no impacts to fire services are anticipated. ii. Police The Project site will be served by the police station located at 33 Arroyo Drive, 1.2 miles north of the Project site. The South ECR GPA EIR anticipated that four additional officers would be required to maintain a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents at buildout and concluded that an additional four officers would not require the construction of a new police station, resulting in less than significant impacts. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The Project would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding police services. 3 -37 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist W. Schools The South ECR GPA EIR shows that the South San Francisco Unified School District has sufficient capacity to meet the demand resulting from the South ECR GPA for school facilities and concludes that there is a less than significant impact on school facilities. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The Project would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding schools. iv. Parks The South ECR GPA EIR shows that South San Francisco has an adequate amount of proposed parkland to meet the additional parkland needed at buildout to meet the General Plan parkland ratio standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents and one -half acre per 1,000 employees at buildout, resulting in less than significant impacts. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The Project would not require the construction or expansion of any new park or recreation facilities, and therefore would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding parks. 3 -38 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.1 S Recreation Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the Project increase the use of existing ✓ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or ✓ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION a, b) Recreation See Section 3.14 (a)(iv) Parks. 3 -39 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist 3.16 Transportation and Traffic Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or ✓ policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion ✓ management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ✓ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ✓ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ✓ regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? DISCUSSION a, b) Transportation This section analyzes the proposed Project's transportation and traffic impacts and cumulative impacts to level of service standards at roadway intersections and segments. The City's General Plan and San Mateo County (C /CAG) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) establish standards regarding traffic operations, level of service, and street systems. The South San Francisco General Plan includes the following standards: 3 -40 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration • Policy 4.2 -G -5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle -miles traveled. • Policy 4.2 -G -8: Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. • Policy 4.2 -G -9: Accept LOS E or F after finding that: — There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and — The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. Table 3.8 shows the thresholds of road segments surrounding the Project site as established by C /CAG in the CMP. Table 3.8: C /CAG Level Of Service Thresholds Roadway Segment LOS El Camino Real between Hickey Blvd and 1 -380 E El Camino Real between 1 -380 and Trousdale E 1 -280 between SR- I (South) and San Bruno Ave D 1 -380 between 1 -280 and US 101 F US 101 between San Francisco County Line and 1 -380 E US 101 between 1 -380 and Millbrae Ave D Source: San Mateo County CMP, 201 I. C /CAG also establishes the following standards:38 • Freeway segments currently in compliance with the adopted LOS standard: — A project is considered to have a CMP impact if the project will cause the freeway segment to operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted in the CMP. — A project will be considered to have a CMP impact if the cumulative analysis indicates that the combination of the proposed project and future cumulative traffic demand will result in the freeway segment to operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted in the current CMP and the proposed project increases traffic demand on the freeway segment by an amount equal to one percent or more of the segment capacity, or causes the freeway segment volume -to- capacity ratio to increase by one percent. • Freeway segments currently not in compliance with the adopted LOS standard: — A project is considered to have a CMP impact if the project will add traffic demand equal to one percent or more of the segment capacity or causes the freeway segment volume -to- capacity ratio to increase by one percent, if the freeway segment is currently not in compliance with the adopted LOS standard. ss San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 2011, Appendix L: Traffic Impact Analysis Policy, Section V 3 -41 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist Under the Project condition, all nine intersections will operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 3.9 shows LOS for the Existing, the No Project with projected future traffic, and the Project conditions with projected future traffic. It was noted that the westbound approach of Noor Avenue at El Camino Real is expected to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour; however, since the City's LOS criteria apply to the intersection as a whole which is operating acceptably at LOS A, the LOS E operations on the side - street approach do not result in a significant impact. Table 3.9: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary 8 AM A A A El Camino Real / Noor Ave PM A A A Westbound Noor Ave Approach 9 Huntington Ave / Noor Ave AM B B B Existing D D E AM B B B Condition B B B Peak Hour (2012) No Project Project No. Intersection LOS AM B B B I El Camino Real / Arroyo Dr PM B B B AM C D D 2 El Camino Real / Westborough Blvd PM C C C AM C C C 3 El Camino Real / W Orange Avenue PM C C C AM C C C 4 El Camino Real / Ponderosa Rd PM B B B AM B B B 5 El Camino Real / Country Club Dr PM B B B AM C C C 6 El Camino Real / S Spruce Ave - Hazelwood Dr PM C D D AM B B B 7 Huntington Ave / S Spruce Ave PM C C C 8 AM A A A El Camino Real / Noor Ave PM A A A Westbound Noor Ave Approach 9 Huntington Ave / Noor Ave AM B B B PM D D E AM B B B PM B B B Notes: LOS = Level of service; Results for minor approaches to two -way stop - controlled intersections are indicated in italics. Source: W- Trans, 2012. The CMP sets the standard to be LOS D for I -280, LOS E for El Camino Real and LOS F for I -380. Table 3.10 shows that two of the eight roadway segments studied are expected to operate at unacceptable levels during peak hour under Project condition. The two roadway segments include northbound p.m. peak hour traffic and southbound a.m. peak hour traffic on I -280 between Sneath Lane and San Bruno Avenue, which will operate unacceptably at LOS E, and northbound a.m. peak hour traffic on US 101 between San Bruno Avenue and I -380, which will operate unacceptably at LOS F. 3 -42 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3.10: AM and PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary Existing Condition Roadway Direction Peak Hour (2012) No Project Project No. Segment Location LOS I El Camino Real S Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr NB AM E E E PM E E E SB AM E E E PM E E E 2 1 -380 to S Spruce NB AM D D D PM D D D SB AM D D D PM D D D 3 I -280 Sneath Ln to E Junipero Serra Blvd NB AM C C C PM D D D SB AM C C C PM D D D 4 San Bruno Ave West to Sneath Ln NB AM C D D PM D E E SB AM D E E PM D D E 5 I -380 US 101 to El Camino Real EB AM D D D PM C C C WB AM B B B PM D D C 6 El Camino Real to I- 280 EB AM E E E PM C C C WB AM B B B PM E E E 7 US 101 1 -380 to Airport Blvd NB AM D E E PM D D D SB AM D D D PM D D D 8 San Bruno Ave to I- 380 NB AM F F F PM E E E SB AM E E E PM E E E Notes: LOS = Level of service; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; Bold indicates unacceptable level of operations. Source: Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc, 2012. 3 -43 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist However, since these two roadway segments would have performed at unacceptable level of service at the No Project condition, and the addition of Project - generated traffic is less than one percent of the road capacity, the Project's impact would be less than significant. Table 3.11 shows that at projected future cumulative volume, five intersections would operate at level of service E or F. Table 3.11: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Cumulative Level of Service Summary Notes: LOS = Level of service; Results for minor approaches to two -way stop - controlled intersections are indicated in italics. Bold indicates unacceptable operations; * = delay greater than 2 minutes. Source: Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc, 2012. Though the westbound Noor Avenue approach would operate at LOS F, the intersection as a whole would still perform at an acceptable level. Since the City's operation standards are applied to the intersection as a whole, not individual approaches, there would be no cumulative traffic impact at intersections. For the five intersections that are identified as operating deficiently, it would be necessary to widen one or more approaches to the impacted intersections to provide additional through and /or turn lanes. The need for additional lanes varies by intersection and it should be noted that not all intersections would require 3 -44 Peak Hour Cumulative Conditions No. Intersection LOS AM D I El Camino Real /Arroyo Dr PM C AM F* 2 El Camino Real /Westborough Blvd- Chestnut Ave PM F AM F* 3 El Camino Real/West Orange Ave PM F AM F* 4 El Camino Real /Ponderosa Rd PM E AM F* 5 El Camino Real /Country Club Dr PM B AM F* 6 El Camino Real /South Spruce Ave - Hazelwood Dr PM F* AM C 7 Huntington Ave / South Spruce Ave PM C AM A El Camino Real / Noor Ave PM A 8 AM C Westbound Noor Ave Approach PM F AM B 9 Huntington Ave / Noor Ave PM B Notes: LOS = Level of service; Results for minor approaches to two -way stop - controlled intersections are indicated in italics. Bold indicates unacceptable operations; * = delay greater than 2 minutes. Source: Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc, 2012. Though the westbound Noor Avenue approach would operate at LOS F, the intersection as a whole would still perform at an acceptable level. Since the City's operation standards are applied to the intersection as a whole, not individual approaches, there would be no cumulative traffic impact at intersections. For the five intersections that are identified as operating deficiently, it would be necessary to widen one or more approaches to the impacted intersections to provide additional through and /or turn lanes. The need for additional lanes varies by intersection and it should be noted that not all intersections would require 3 -44 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration the same level of widening to achieve acceptable operations. However, additional improvements beyond these five intersections may be necessary to provide a consistent configuration of El Camino Real along the corridor. The necessary capacity enhancements to the intersection would require acquisition of additional right -of -way, relocation of utilities and modified access to adjacent properties. Furthermore, the intersections are controlled by Caltrans, requiring all improvements to be approved by the State; therefore implementation of the required mitigation measures is beyond the control of the City alone. Policy 4.2 -G -9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that "if there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this Project provides clear public benefits by meeting the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative Plan, implementing the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment, and meeting the policies of the South San Francisco General Plan, the Project would not result in significant impacts at these intersections. This finding is also consistent with the previously approved South El Camino Real General Plan Amendments EIR. This Project provides clear public benefits by fulfilling the following: • Meets the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative Plan39 by: — Targeting housing and job growth at a key intersection along the El Camino corridor; — Building compact mixed -use development and high - quality urban design and construction; and — Strengthening pedestrian and bicycle connections with the corridor by providing bicycle parking, interior pedestrian networks throughout and to El Camino and South Spruce Avenue, and sidewalks and pedestrian entrances along Huntington Avenue to connect to the San Bruno BART station. • Implements the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment. • Meets the policies of the South San Francisco General Plan: — Policy 2 -G -7: Encourage mixed -use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. — Policy 2 -I -4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2 -2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. The requirements of the TDM Program are detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. — Policy 3.4 -G -2: Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity that provide focii and identity to the different parts of El Camino Real. — Policy 3.4 -G -5: Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. — Policy 3.4 -G -7: Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non - residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian - scaled environment. 39 Grand Boulevard Task Force, Grand Boulevard Initiative Plan, Adopted April 3, 2007, httl2://www.gandboulevard.net/library/documents.htnfl, Accessed February 7, 2013 3 -45 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist — Policy 3.4 -1 -24: Promote visually intricate development, using horizontal and vertical building articulation that engages pedestrians; and diversity in color, materials, scale, texture, and building volumes. — Policy 3.4 -1 -30: Require development be oriented to El Camino Real, with the ground floor of buildings designed so that pedestrians can see shops, restaurants, and activities as they walk along the sidewalk. The ground floor of buildings along Huntington, Noor, and South Spruce avenues should also be designed to provide visual interest and promote pedestrian comfort. — Policy 4.3 -I -4: Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office /institutional uses. — Housing Element Policy 1 -9: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. — Housing Element Policy 2 -4: The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes with existing neighborhood surroundings. Table 3.12 shows that at future cumulative volume, two freeway segments would perform at unacceptable level of service. However, traffic generated by the Project represents less than one percent of freeway capacity. Thus, the Project's impact to freeway segments would be less than significant based on C /CAG standards. 3 -46 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3.12: AM and PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Cumulative Level of Service Summary No. Roadway Segment Location Direction Peak Hour Cumulative I El Camino Real S Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr NB AM E PM E SB AM E PM E 2 1 -380 to S Spruce NB AM D PM D SB AM D PM D 3 I -280 Sneath Ln to E Junipero Serra Blvd NB AM D PM D SB AM D PM E 4 San Bruno Ave West to Sneath Ln NB AM D PM F SB AM E PM E 5 I -380 US 101 to El Camino Real EB AM D PM C WB AM B PM E 6 El Camino Real to 1 -280 EB AM F PM C WB AM C PM F 7 US 101 1 -380 to Airport Blvd NB AM E PM E SB AM D PM E 8 San Bruno Ave to 1 -380 NB AM F PM F SB AM F PM F Notes: LOS = Level of service; Results for minor approaches to two -way stop - controlled intersections are indicated in italics. Source: Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc, 2012. 3 -47 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist c) Air Traffic Patterns The proposed Project would not change any air traffic patterns nor would it change the location of the San Francisco International Airport. Therefore there will be no impacts on air traffic. d) Incompatible Design Features or Incompatible Uses The proposed Project would not increase hazards due to incompatible use or designs that would negatively alter the public right -of -way. Clear sight lines would be maintained at the project driveways, and any landscaping or signage would need to be either low -lying or setback from the project driveways as required by South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.330.010 Parking Area Design and Development Standards. Therefore, there will be no impact in regards to hazards. e) Emergency Access The proposed Project includes two driveways on South Spruce Avenue, one existing and one modified driveway along El Camino Real, and modifies two driveways along Huntington Avenue to allow all turning movements. Therefore, there will be no adverse impact in regard to emergency access. f) Public Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The Project supports the user of alternative transportation by providing sidewalks and street - oriented retail along El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue, Huntington Avenue, and through the provision of bike racks near building entrances. The Project also includes sidewalks along the project frontage at El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue, and new pedestrian pathways that connect all new buildings and parking areas to sidewalks along these main streets. Moreover, the Project's street - oriented design (i.e. continuous setbacks and street - facing facades) complements the walkability goals of the South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (2006). Additionally, the Project supports the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative by placing retail and residential uses near existing SamTrans bus lines along El Camino Real. Furthermore, a pedestrian entrance will be provided along Huntington Avenue to provide a southern connection of the property (the closest point to the San Bruno BART station) to Huntington Avenue (See Figure 2.7 Site Plan). The Project impact will be less than significant. 3 -48 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ✓ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water ✓ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm ✓ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ✓ the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ✓ treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ✓ capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ✓ regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION a, b, e) Wastewater The proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulations and would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. The South ECR GPA EIR shows that projected wastewater generation at buildout will be below the capacity allocated to the City of South San Francisco at buildout, resulting in less than significant impacts. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The Project would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding wastewater. c) Storm Water Drainage The Project site is currently served by municipal storm sewers. The Project site is located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone; however the Project site is not subject to hydromodification since the 3 -49 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist majority of Colma Creek is lined. The proposed Project would not require new or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities, resulting in no impact. d) Water Supply The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The South ECR GPA EIR estimated a 2000 city population of 60,552, of which 49,807 or 82 percent were included in the service population of the South San Francisco District for the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Assuming the same percentage of service population, the 2020 projected service population with the additional 2,410 persons resulting from the South ECR GPA EIR was estimated at 57,678. Since then, a new 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has been adopted by Cal Water. The 2010 UWMP projects a 2020 service population of 58,297, which accommodates the 57,678 population projection estimated by the South ECR GPA EIR.40 Since the South ECR GPA EIR was adopted, Senate Bill No. 7 (SBx7 -7), also known as the 20x2020 policy was signed into law in November 2009. SBx7 -7 amended the State Water Code to require a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. The 2015 and 2020 district - specific targets for South San Francisco District are 138 and 124 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), respectively, compared to an average use of 140 gpcd between 2005 and 2010. Since the 2010 UWMP includes water reduction measures to comply with SBx7 -7, which the City and Cal Water service areas must follow, and the 2010 UWMP accounts for the Project site, the Project would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding water supply. f, g) Solid Waste The South ECR GPA EIR shows that the expected additional waste generated under the amendment is not expected to strain existing landfill capacity. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The Project would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding solid waste. 40 California Water Service Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District, Table 3.3 -8, June 2011. 3 -50 180 El Camino Real— Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Would the Project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the ✓ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range or a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but ✓ cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Have environmental effects which will cause ✓ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION a, c) Quality of Environment and Adverse Effects on Human Beings Impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mandatory compliance with existing federal, State and local standards and implementation of mitigation measures discussed in this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration. Implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment nor result in adverse effects on human beings, provided the Project adheres to all mandated policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies. b) Cumulative Impacts The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and accompanying EIR, which included analysis regarding cumulative impacts. The Project would not result in any new additional cumulative impacts other than those identified in the South ECR GPA EIR. 3 -51 Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist This page intentionally left blank. 3 -52 4 References AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170 -192 El Camino Real, November 4, 2004. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Liquefaction Scenario Shaking Maps, available at ABAG, http: / /gis.abag.ca. gov / Website /LiquefactionSusceptibility /, accessed November 2012. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Earthquake Shaking Scenarios, available at http: / /gis.abag.ca. gov / website /LandslideDistribution /, accessed November 2012. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Landslide Hazard Areas, available at http: / /gis.abag.ca.gov /Website /Tsunami - Maps /viewer.htm, accessed November 2012. Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD), Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, available at http: / /gis.abag.ca. gov / website /LandslideDistribution /, accessed December 2012. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, June 2010, Revised May 2011, Updated May 2012. Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD), Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan: Volume I and II— Final Adopted, September 2010.Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD), California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, December 2010 and May 2012. Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD), Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Analysis Tool for San Mateo County kml file, available at http: / /www.baagmd.gov /Divisions /Planning- and- Research /CEQA- GUIDELINES /Tools- and - Methodology.aspx, accessed December 2012. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects: CAPCOA Guidance Document, July 2009. California Air Resources Board, ADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, available at http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /adam, accessed August, 2012. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005, available at http: // www.arb.ca.gov /ch /handbook.pdf, accessed December 2012. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Trend Summaries, 2010, available at http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /adam /trends /trendsi.php, accessed December 2012. California Building Standards Commission, 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, January 1, 2011. Chapter 4: References California Emission Estimator Model, Technical Paper: Methodology Reasoning and Policy Development of the California Emission Estimator Model, July 2011. California Emission Estimator Model, User's Guide, Version 2011. 1, February 2011. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, "Cortese" List, http: / /www.calepa.ca.gov /sitecleanup /corteselist /SectionA.htm, accessed December 4, 2012. California Water Service Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District, Table 3.3 -8, June 2011. C /CAG of San Mateo County, Final San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, November 2011. City /County Association of Governments (C /CAG), Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, October 2012. City of South San Francisco, South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft EIR, November 2009. City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, October 1999. Citywide List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources, Updated November 13, 2002, City of South San Francisco. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Issued Flood Maps, https: / /msc.fema.gov/ webal2p /wcs /stores /servlet /FemaWelcomeView, Accessed November 1, 2012. Grand Boulevard Task Force, Grand Boulevard Initiative Plan: The El Camino Real Corridor: From Mission Street in Daly city to the Alameda in San Jose, Adopted April 3, 2007 (Amended by Resolution 31 -2010, Adopted March 24, 2010), http: / /www.grandboulevard .net /library /documents.html, Accessed February 7, 2013. Much, Bryan, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Record search results for the proposed project at 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, November 19, 2012. Natural Resources Conservation Service. San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California Survey Area Data. Web Soil Survey website: http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov. Accessed February 19, 2013. South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey 1985 -1986: A Comprehensive Study of History and Architecture, City of South San Francisco Community Services Department and the Firm of Bonnie L. Bamburg. Stantec, First Quarter 2012 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report. Chevron 306441 (Former Unocal No. 6980) 190 -192 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, May 15, 2012. 4 -2 Chapter 4: References University of California Museum of Paleontology, UCMP Specimen Database, available at http: / /ucmpdb.berkeley.edu, accessed December 2012. Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco Updated Draft Report, February 27, 2013. 4 -3 Chapter 4: References This page intentionally left blank. 4 -4 5 Appendix AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170 -192 El Camino Real, November 4, 2004. California Emission Estimator Model, Air Quality Analysis Calculation Output, November 27, 2012 and December 4, 2012. Stantec, First Quarter 2012 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report. Chevron 306441 (Former Unocal No. 6980) 190 -192 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, May 15, 2012. Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco, Updated Draft Report, February 27, 2013. Chapter 5: Appendix This page intentionally left blank. 5 -2 DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 941 1 1 415 956 4300 J& 415 956 73 15 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real Prepared for The City of South San Francisco By DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners May 23, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................. ............................... 2 Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated NegativeDeclaration ................................................................... ............................... 3 3 Responses to Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed MitigatedNegative Declaration .................................................. ............................... 5 4 Revisions to the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ...... 9 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................... ............................... 13 Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Introduction PURPOSE This document is the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Centennial Village mixed -use development project at 180 El Camino Real. This document has been prepared by the City of South San Francisco in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq., as amended. The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency as defined by CEQA for environmental review of this project. The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) includes the Initial Study /Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Comments on and Responses to Comments on the Initial Study /Proposed MND, and minor corrections and clarifications to the Proposed MND. The primary purpose of the Final MND is to revise and refine the environmental analysis in the Initial Study /Proposed MND, published on April 12, 2013, in response to comments received during the public review period. This document, which includes the Initial Study /Proposed MND as an appendix, constitutes the Final MND on the project. It amends and incorporates by reference the Initial Study /Proposed MND, which is available as a separately -bound document from the City of South San Francisco Planning Division at 315 Maple Avenue, in South San Francisco, and also online at http: / /www.ssf.net /index.aspx ?nid =367. :1614] *P� Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a lead agency shall provide a public review period for a proposed MND pursuant to Section 151045(b) of not less than 30 days from when submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The Initial Study /Proposed MND for the project at 180 El Camino Real was circulated for the required 30 -day public review period beginning on Friday, April 12, 2013 and ending on May 13, 2013. In addition, the City of South San Francisco prepared and circulated to all interested agencies and individuals a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) requires that the decision - making body of the Lead Agency consider the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process prior to approving a project. Six comment letters were received regarding the proposed project. Chapter 2 of this document contains the comments received; Chapter 3 contains the responses to these comments; and Chapter City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real 4 lists the revisions to the Proposed MND by chapter and page, in the same order as the revisions would appear in the Proposed MND. 2 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration This chapter contains copies of the comment letters received on the Initial Study /Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. A total of six comment letters were received during the 30 -day public review period. Each letter is numbered and each individual comment is assigned a letter in the page margin. Responses to each comment are provided in Chapter 3 of this document. Where appropriate, the clarifications and /or revisions suggested in these comment letters have been incorporated into the Proposed MND. These revisions are shown in Chapter 4 of this document. Table 2 -1: Comments Received on the Initial Study /Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for 180 El Camino Real Number Date Agency Commenter I April 29, 2013 San Mateo County Health System 2 May 3, 2013 3 May 8, 2013 4 May 13, 2013 5 May 14, 2013 6 May 21, 2013 San Francisco International Airport County of San Mateo Public Works City /County Association of Governments of Sa Mateo County California Department of Transportation City of San Bruno Deno G. Milano, PG, Hazardous Materials Specialist John Bergener, Airport Planning Manager Mark Chow, P.E. David F. Corbone, C /CAG Staff Erik Alm, AICP Mark Sullivan, Housing and Redevelopment Manager 3 City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real This page intentionally left blank E \c3� �/�c1 �.E') Co -u Liz (} A.. Health. Svstej--n. April 29, 2013 Billy Gross, AICP Associate Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Letter # 1 AA? 3g SMCo ♦♦ Vy 98 / R0708 APN: P283 -110 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Gross: Thank you for the April 2013 proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the subject development by Dyett and Bhatia. The following comments are based on San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program (GPP) staff review of Chapter 3.8 of the document (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and our project file. It appears a significant portion of the discussion section on Pages 3 -25 and 3 -26 of the MND is based on the November 2004 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by AEI Consultants. Please note, a significant amount of assessment information has been obtained since 2004 which affects some of the comments in Paragraph 2 on Page 3 -26 of the MND. For example, groundwater monitoring is performed semi - annually (not quarterly) and is not simply being performed for case closure (has been performed to assess the extent, stability, and risk of the contamination). Six wells are monitored (not 5) and fairly recent groundwater samples have 1 -d contained hydrocarbons in concentrations greater than those cited. This paragraph also fails to mention the hydrocarbon concentrations reported in shallow soil and soil vapor that significantly exceed Environmental Screening Levels established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Furthermore, the TPH -gas concentrations in groundwater exceed 100 ug/1 over a distance of at least 120 feet (not <30 feet as implied) and significant concentrations of hydrocarbons have been reported in soil as shallow as 2.5 feet below grade (e.g. SV -3, SB -2, HA -1, and OBS -4), not 10 to 40 feet below grade as implied. A portion of Mitigation Bullet #1 on Page 3 -27 of the MND states "the project applicant will determine the depth of soil contamination from the latest groundwater monitoring report". GPP staff recommend revision of this text to read "the project applicant will determine the depth of 1 _b soil contamination from the soil and groundwater sampling reports" because groundwater monitoring reports typically only discuss contaminants in groundwater. In addition, GPP staff request the City to add the following condition to Bullet #1: "The project applicant must obtain Tr.viroiinie.atal If ealth 2000 Alameda de las Fulga.s, Saito 100, S= Mateo, CA 014403 Phone (650) 372 -6200 • Fax (630) 627 -02.14 - C A. Aefay 711 - 'Websitc www.smchealth.org i fe iith SN-tern Chief.- Jean S. Fraser d %z,a d of Sups ...Tiscrs • D on Horsley • Dave Pine • Carole Groom • Warren Slocum • .Adrieruit Tissier Former Unocal #6980, 192 El Camino Real, So. San Francisco (SMCo. #550098 ' RO708) April 29, 2013 Page 2 GPP staff approval of the soil management plan discussed in the GPP staff letter dated April 9, 2013, before any .soil excavation commences the vicinity of Buildings A and B ". GPP staff concur with Mitigation Bullet 42 on Page 3 -27 of the MND, though we will likely require construction of an active subsurface vapor mitigation system unless Chevron can demonstrate a passive system will be sufficiently protective. However, we request the City to add the following condition to Bullet #2: "The applicant will incorporate into the design of -C Building A remediation wells and appurtenant equipment (e.g. piping) approved by GPP staff so residual hydrocarbons can be remediated during building occupancy to levels that no longer pose a significant risk to human health, environment, and water quality as determined by GPP staff or the State Water Resources Control Board" Please contact me at (650) 372 -6292 or at dmilanoksmcaov.ora if you have any questions. Materials Specialist Groundwater Protection Program cc: State GeoTracker Database William Mitchell; W.T. Mitchell Group, P.O. Box 5127, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 John Sheerin, Bridgestone Firestone, 333 East Lake Street; Bloomingdale; IL 60108 Eric Hetrick, Chevron Environmental Mgmt. (via ehetrick @chevron.com) Dorota Runyan, Stantec (via dorota.runyan @stantee.com) May 3, 2013 Letter #2 San Francisco International Airport Apu �I. MAY p32013 Mr. Billy Gross _jj�, . Associate Planner rr. Planning Division City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject. Initial Study/Midgated Negative Declaration for Centennial Village Mixed -Use Development Project at 180 El Camino Real — City of South San Francisco Dear Mr. Gross: Thank you for notifying San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) of the availability of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Centennial Village mixed -use development project at 180 El Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco. We appreciate this opportunity to coordinate with the City of South San Francisco (the City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility issues that this and similar projects may pose. As described in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project consists of the removal of existing commercial buildings and construction of six new buildings containing retail, office, and residential uses totaling 674,470 square feet of mixed uses on a14.5 -acre lot. A total of 285 residential units are proposed. The buildings range between two and five stories (40 feet to 70 feet in height); a tower, the tallest element, reaches 90 feet in height. The project site is located within Airport Influence Area B, as defined in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for SFO, adopted by the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) in November 2012. Proposed projects within Airport Influence Area B are subject to the ALUCP's policies for noise compatibility, safety compatibility, and airspace protection. This is supported by South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Policy 2 -I -22, which states: "Require that all future development conforms to the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport." The following sections discuss the proposed project's land use compatibility with respect to ALUCP policies for noise compatibility, safety compatibility, and airspace protection. Noise Compatibility The project site is situated within the current CNEL 70 -75 dB noise contours (2020 forecast). Per ALUCP policy NP -4, new residential development is not compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB. However, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration cites ALUCP General Policy 2_a G.P -5.3, which grants an exception to noise consistency evaluations for development actions in the review process before the effective date of the current ALUCP, provided that the proposed development action meets all other requirements of the current ALUCP. Since the project application was deemed complete before the adoption of the ALUCP, the project is to be evaluated for noise consistency based on the noise AIRPORT COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO EDWIN M. LEE LARRY MAZZOLA LINDA S. CRAYTON ELEANOR JOHNS RICHARD J. GUGGENHIME PETER A. STERN JOHN L. MARTIN MAYOR PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT AIRPORT DIRECTOR Post Office Box 8097 San Francisco, California 94128 Tel 650.821.5000 Fax 650.821.5005 www.flysfo.com Mr. Billy Gross May 3, 2013 Page 2 of 2 contours contained in thel996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2006 NEM). The project proposes new multi - family residential use in the CNEL 65 to 70 dB range (2006 NEM). Multi - family residential use in the CNEL 65 to 70 dB range is conditionally compatible subject to adequate sound insulation and grant of avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as the proprietor of SFO. ALUCP policy NP -3 requires the City to implement these conditions prior to final approval of the proposed development. Commercial uses within the CNEL 70 to 75 dB range (2006 NEM) are compatible without restrictions. It should be noted that per ALUCP policy NP -4, any future proposal to construct additional dwellings, subdivide land, or create condominiums for residential use within the CNEL 70 dB contour shall be incompatible and inconsistent with the ALUCP. Safety Compatibility A portion of the project site is situated in Safety Zone 4 — Outer Approach/Departure Zone. The project does not propose any incompatible uses, such as children's schools, large child day care centers, 2 -b hospitals, nursing homes, or stadiums. No use that is deemed incompatible should be added to the site in the future. Airspace Protection A preliminary airspace analysis indicates that the project as proposed would not pose incompatibilities with respect to building height. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires notification of proposed construction for projects that may have a potential effect on air navigation facilities, pursuant to CFR Title 14 Part 77.9. According to the FAA Notice Criteria Tool, the proposed project is subject to notification requirements. FAA Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, may be submitted by the project sponsor through the FAA's Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis website (http://oeaaa.faa.gov). A Determination of No Hazard from the FAA should be obtained prior to project approval. The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments, and requests notification of future public hearings associated with this project and the opportunity to review the draft land use permit and conditions prior to final approval. If I can be of assistance as the City considers airport land use compatibility as it relates to this project or future projects, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821 -7867 or at john.bergener flysfo.com. Sincerely, 52 John Bergener Airport Planning Manager Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs Bert Ganoung, SFO, Noise Abatement Manager Dave Carbone, C /CAG Letter #3 1 COUNTY OJT' SAN MATES AVEEPNESiJPERHIS ®Rs C. AROLE GROOM DON HORSLEY ROSE JACOSS GIBSON ► ADRIENNE J. TISSIER I Department of ? ublic Works JAMES C. PORTER DIRECTOR 555 COUNTY CENTER, 5r" FLOOR . REDWOOD CITY + CALIFORNIA 94063-1665 • PHONE (650) 363=i4 FAX (950) 3151.8220 May 8, 2013 iip Mr. Billy Gross, Associate Planner MAY 13 2013 City of South San Francisco 1'I, Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Notice of Availability of Public Review and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed 180 El Camino Real ( "Centennial Village ") Project, South San Francisco Dear Mr. Gross: The San Mateo County Department of Public Works, in its capacity as the Administrator of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (District) which includes the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone (Zone), has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the subject project and offers the following comments: • Our records confirm that the proposed project site is located within the Zone. Although the IS/MND, on Page 3 -30, states that the proposed project would result in an increase of landscaped pervious surface from 32,000 square feet to 68,200 square feet at the site and would not increase drainage or runoff, the District's policy of requiring that project proponent demonstrate that the 3 -d post development discharge rate from the site not exceed the existing rate prior to development would still apply. Therefore, drainage calculations showing existing and future discharge rates must be submitted for review. If it is determined that the future discharge rate exceeds the existing rate, an on -site storm water detention system which would release surface runoff at a rate comparable to the existing flow rate of the site must be designed and incorporated into the project. • The District advocates that trash management measures be incorporated into the design elements 3 -% of the storm drainage system and appurtenances. Please ensure that trash collecting devices are installed at storm drain inlets and maintained by the owner. If you have any questions, please contact me at (650) 599 -1489. Very truly yours, Mark Chow, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Utilities -Flood Control- Watershed Protection MC:EVG:cv F: \Users \admin \Utility \Colma Creek FCD \Word\Review External Project \City of SSF\180 El Camino Real \Centennial Village ISMND Comments.doc G: \Users \utility',Colma Creek FCD \WORD\Review External Project \City of SSF\180 El Camino Real \Centennial Village ISAND Comments.doc cc: Ann M. Stillman, P.E., Deputy Director, Engineering and Resource Protection Letter #4 C/CAG CITY /COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • HillsboroughVenlo Park • Millbrae Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood Cat • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County -South San Francisco • Woodside May 13, 2013 Billy Gross, Associate Planner Planning Division, City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Gross: RE: C /CAG Staff Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Centennial Village Mixed -Use Project at 180 El Camino Real Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above- referenced documents. The comments that follow are C /CAG staff comments related to the airport/land use compatibility elements of the proposed project. Project Description The project site is located at the southeast corner of Spruce Ave. and El Camino Real in South San Francisco. The site includes a Safeway grocery store and several other retail buildings on a 14.5 -acre site. The proposed project consists of removing all of the existing buildings and constructing a new shopping center that would include six new buildings. The new buildings would contain retail (a new Safeway), office, and residential uses totaling 674,470 square feet. The residential component would include 285 units above the commercial uses. The buildings range between two and five stories (40 to 70 feet in height The tallest element (a tower) is 90 feet in height. The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and therefore, does not require formal ALUC /C /CAG review Airport Influence Area (AIA) Boundary The project site is located within Airport Influence Area (AIA) B, as defined in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ( ALUCP) for the environs of San Francisco International Airport adopted by C /CAG in November 2012. Proposed projects within Area B are subject to the ALUCP policies for airport noise compatibility, safety compatibility, and height of structures /airspace protection. This is supported by South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Policy 2 -I -22, which states, "Require that all future development conforms to the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport." ALUCP .UCP Land Use Compatibility Policies The following sections address the proposed project's land use compatibility with respect to the ALUCP policies for airport noise impacts, safety compatibility, and height of structures /airspace protection. 555 County Center, A' Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 PHONE: 650.599.1406 FAX: 650.361.8227 www.ecag.ca.gov C /CAG Staff Comment Letter on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Centennial Village Mixed -Use Project at 180 El Camino Real in South San Francisco May 13, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Airport Noise Compatibility. The project is located within the current 70 -75 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport, per the Airport's 2020 aviation activity forecast. Per ALUCP Policy NP -4, new residential development is not compatible in areas exposed to noise above 70 dB CNEL. However, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document cites ALUCP General Policy GP -5.3, which grants an exception to noise consistency evaluations for development actions in a 4 -d local agency review process and the project application was deemed complete prior to the effective date of the current ALUCP, provided that the proposed development meets all other requirements of the current ALUCP. Since the project application was deemed complete by the City of South San Francisco before the adoption of the current ALUCP, the project is to be evaluated for airport noise compatibility based on the noise contours contained in the 1996 San Francisco International Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) 2006 Noise Exposure Map (NEM). The project includes a multi - family residential use in the 65 -70 dB CNEL range (2006 NEM). A multi- family use in this noise level range is conditionally compatible, subject to including adequate sound insulation in the building design to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms and granting an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as the proprietor of the Airport. ALUCP Policy NP -3 requires the City of South San Francisco to implement these conditions prior to final approval of the proposed development. Commercial uses within the 70 -75 dB CNEL range (2006 NEM) are compatible with Airport operations without conditions or restrictions. Safety Compatibility. A portion of the project site is located within Safety Zone 4 — Outer Approach/Departure Zone, as shown in the current ALUCP. However, none of the incompatible uses 4 -b listed for this zone, (children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, or stadiums) are included in the project and should not be added to the project site in the future. Height of Structures /Airspace Protection. The FAA requires notification of proposed construction for projects that may have a potential effect on the navigable airspace (CFR Title 14 Part 77). According to the FAA Notice Criteria Tool, the proposed project is subject to the federal notification requirements. I 4 -C strongly urge the project sponsor to submit FAA Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to the FAA, through its website at: http: / /oeaaa.faa.gov, as soon as possible, to receive a timely response. The FAA's response should be incorporated into the final project approval. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at 650/599 -1453, T -Th, or via email, at dcarbone a smegov.org Sincerely,, David . Carb ne, C /CAG Staff cc: C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) C /CAG Board John Bergener, SFO Airport Planning Manager CCAGStaffcomletSS [CentennialProject0513.docx 555 County Center, -Ah Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 PHONE: 650.599.1406 FAx: 650.361.8227 www.ceag.ca.gov Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5559; May -14 -13 8:41AM; Page 1/2 Letter #5 s rA• H OF CA[ WKWA— BIMINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY MWI A Qma= 19 !'tvY� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P- O_ BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 946230660 PHONE (510) 286 -6053 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 May 14, 20'13 SM082284 SM -$2 -17.6 SCH#2013042033 Mr. Billy Gross City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Gross: 180 El Camino Real Project — Mitigated Negative Declaration Thanks you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 140 El Camino Real project. The following comments are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As the lead agency, the City of South San Francisco (City) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvemcnts to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation respopsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. This information should also be presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan of the environmental document, Required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Since an encroachment permit is required for work in the state right of way (ROW), and Caltrans will not issue a permit until our concerns are adequately addressed, we strongly recommend that the County -work with both the applicant and the Caltrans to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the environmental prods, and in any case prior to submittal of an encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Traffic Impact Study Please confirm the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendments (GPA) of 2009 was 5 -d updated to reflect conditions to the year 2035. if the GPA was not, please update this project's analysis to reflect 2035 Cumulative Conditions. "Calbuns improves•mubllityWrbB8 Cu!{f0r414.. Flex your power! Be energy efClent! Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5559; Mr. Billy Gross /City of South San Francisco May 14, 2013 Page 2 May -14 -13 8:41AM; Page 2/2 Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plazas clearly indicating the state 5 -b ROW must be submitted to: Office of Permits, California Department of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623 -0660. Traffic - related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the website link below for more information. hiti)://www.dot.ca.-goy/hq/traffoys/develoysc:.rv/pe rmitsl Please; feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan at (510) 622 -1644 or sandrs finegan(4dot.ea;goy with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, ERIK ALM, A1CP District Branch Chief Local Development — Intergovernmental Review c: State; Clearinghouse "Call w improves mob MY across California" A N BRU May 21, 2013 Billy Gross, Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Letter #6 CITY OF SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco Dear Mr. Gross, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project at 180 El Camino Real in South San Francisco. The Project site is located one block north of the San Bruno City boundary on El Camino Real, and traffic impacts are the City's principal concern. Thank you for clarifying that the Mitigated Negative Declaration tiers off of the certified 2009 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR, and the proposed project does not exceed impacts analyzed in that EIR. 6 -d Based on our understanding of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project would not result in impacts that affect the City of San Bruno that were not already analyzed in the General Plan Amendment EIR. San Bruno supports this type of mixed -use development along the El Camino Real corridor which is in line with San Bruno's 2009 General Plan and 2013 Transit Corridors Specific Plan and furthers the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative. Sincerely, J,�'k a Mark Sullivan Housing and Redevelopment Manager 567 F.1 Camino Real, San Bruno, CA 94066 -4299 Voice: (650) 616 -7074 ■ Fax: (650) 873 -6749 httpPci.sanbruno.ca.us 3 Responses to Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration This chapter includes responses to each comment, and in the same order, as presented in Chapter 2. The responses are marked with the same number - letter combination as the comment to which they respond, as shown in the margin of the comment letters. 1 -a: Comment 1 -a lists San Mateo County Health System's updates to the Environmental Site Assessment cited in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Proposed MND. The Proposed MND has been revised to reflect these updates. They are: • Groundwater monitoring is performed semi - annually, not quarterly. • Groundwater monitoring is being performed to assess the extent, stability, and risk of the contamination, not for case closure. • Six wells are monitored, not five. In addition, SMCHS noted that it could support destruction of these wells to facilitate development, provided that necessary monitoring wells are reinstalled when construction is complete. • Hydrocarbon concentrations higher than the stated 62,000 micrograms per liter (ug /L) were reported. • SMCHS notes that there were hydrocarbon concentrations reported in shallow soil and soil vapor that exceed Environmental Screening Levels established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. • The TPH -gas concentrations in groundwater exceed 100 ug /L over a distance of at least 120 feet from the monitoring well MW -1R, rather than the stated concentration of less than 100 ug /L at a location 30 feet from the monitoring well. • Significant concentrations of hydrocarbons have been reported in soil as shallow as 2.5 feet below grade, not 10 to 40 feet below grade. 1 -b: Comment 1 -b proposes changes to the Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 listed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Proposed MND has been revised to reflect the changes. They are: Bullet #2 under Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 now references "soil and groundwater sampling reports" rather than "groundwater monitoring report ". City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real • Bullet #2 under Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 now includes the following condition: "The project applicant must obtain GPP staff approval of the soil management plan discussed in the GPP staff letter dated April 9, 2013, before any soil excavation commences [in] the vicinity of Buildings A and B ". • Bullet #3 under Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 now includes the following condition: "The applicant will incorporate into the design of Building A remediation wells and appurtenant equipment (e.g. piping) approved by GPP staff so residual hydrocarbons can be remediated during building occupancy to levels that no longer pose a significant risk to human health, environment, and water quality as determined by GPP staff or the State Water Resources Control Board ". 2 -a: Comment 2 -a points out that although the development will be situated within noise contours currently incompatible with new residential development per ALUCP policy NP- 4, the ALUCP General Policy GP -5.3 grants an exception to noise consistency evaluations for development actions in the review process before the effective date of the current ALUCP, and 180 El Camino Real qualifies for this exception. No change to the Proposed MND is required. 2 -b: The comment points out that while a portion of the project site is situated in Safety Zone 4 - Outer Approach /Departure Zone, the project does not propose any incompatible uses. No change to the Proposed MND is required. 2 -c: The comment states that the project is subject to notification of proposed construction for projects that may have a potential effect on air navigation facilities. The comment suggests that FAA Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, be submitted by the project sponsor through the FAA's Obstruction Evaluation /Airport Airspace Analysis website, and indicates that a Determination of No Hazard from the FAA should be obtained prior to project approval. No change to the Proposed MND is required. 3 -a: The comment requires that the project proponent submit drainage calculations to show that the post development discharge rate from the site does not exceed the existing rate. If it is determined that the future discharge rate exceeds the existing rate, the comment requires that an on -site storm water detention system be designed and incorporated into the project. A mitigation measure, HYDRO -1, has been added to the Proposed MND. 3 -b: The comment is a request that trash management measures be incorporated into the design elements of the storm drainage systems and appurtenances. The Proposed MND has been revised to add this information. This information has been added as a requirement in Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1. 4 -a: The first paragraph of this comment is the same as Comment 2 -a. The second paragraph states that multi - family uses on the project site are subject to including adequate sound insulation in the building design to achieve an interior noise level of 45 db CNEL in all habitable rooms and granting an avigation easement to the City of South San Francisco. No change to the Proposed MND is required. 6 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 -b: This comment is the same as comment 2 -b. No change to the Proposed MND is required. 4 -c: This comment is the same as comment 2 -c. No change to the Proposed MND is required. 5 -a: The comment requests that the project's traffic impact analysis be updated to reflect 2035 Cumulative Conditions. There is, however, no specific requirement to analyze traffic impacts to a cumulative year of 2035, and, typically, the cumulative forecast year used is that which corresponds to the City's General Plan, which in this case is 2030. Furthermore, a 2030 horizon is adequate as the 180 El Camino Real project was included in the GP Amendment and is consistent with the GP Amendment land use plan. Therefore, no change has been made to the Proposed MND. 5 -b: The comment points out that any work or traffic control that encroaches into the state ROW requires an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans. No change to the Proposed MND is required. 6 -a: The comment states that the City of San Bruno supports this type of mixed -use development along the El Camino Real Corridor. No change to the Proposed MND is required. 7 City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real This page intentionally left blank. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 Revisions to the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration This chapter includes the revisions to the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The revisions have been made in response to comments or based on review by the MND preparers. The revisions appear here in the order in which they appear in the Proposed MND. Text additions are noted in underline and text deletions appear in stfikeou . 9 City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real Table 4 -1: Revisions to the Initial Study /Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for 180 El Camino Real Chapter/ Section Page Revision 3.8 3 -26 The second paragraph under the subheading "a -d) Hazardous Materials" is amended as foI lows: Though the Project site is not listed as a hazardous site per Government Code Section 65962.5 '21 the Phase I Environmental Assessment reveals former uses that may have resulted in residual concentrations of subsurface soil contamination on site from former vehicle repair uses prior to Firestone and an open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site from former Unocal service station use that is currently undergoing groundwater monitoring at a may- emi- annual basis to ebtaiR Ease E'es„ -e assess the extent, stability, and risk of the contamination .25 The Assessment report shows that impacts from former leaking hydraulic lifts at Firestone appear to be less than significant, but recommends continuous monitoring for presence of volatile organic compounds and heavy range hydrocarbon concentration through groundwater sampling and analysis at existing monitoring wells. Currently fko-e six wells are being monitored (few three of them twice a year and eee three of them once a year) at the former Unocal service station site. The monitoring wells are located in front and behind the Firestone building, where proposed commercial Building A and a portion of surface parking area will be located. Based on the latest groundwater monitoring report by Stantec, which shows results of groundwater monitoring and sampling as well as analysis from soil samples performed on September 20, 2011 and January 6, 2012, hydrocarbons concentrations such as gasoline range organics were reported as higher than �s 62,000 micrograms per liter (ug /L) with depth of highest soil impact FaRgiRg fFeFn 10 feet te 40 as shallow as 2.5 feet below grade .2' The groundwater monitoring report shows that the highest concentration of gasoline range organics is located just west of the service bays at Firestone and deEFeases iR EeREeRtFatieR with less thaR remains in excess of 100 ug /L '�^vczccccaEted at a ;eeatiee � over a distance of at least 120 feet from the monitoring well MW- I R located west of the Firestone service bays. (See Figure 5 of Stantec Report in the Appendix). Additionally, hydrocarbon concentrations reported in shallow soil and soil vapor significantlX exceeded Environmental Screening Levels established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Since the areas identified by the Stantec report as having concentration of hydrocarbons are not proposed to include residential units, the following mitigation measures prevent potential leakage of contaminated soil into future ground -level retail uses. SMCHS also noted that it could support destruction of the monitoring wells to facilitate development, provided that necessary monitoring wells are reinstalled when construction is complete. 3.8 3 -27 The second bullet under "Mitigation Measure HAZ -I" is amended as follows: To ensure safety from potential harm to construction crew during excavation and construction, the Project applicant will determine the depth of soil contamination from the latest soil and groundwater FneRiteFiR g sampling reports for the site of former Unocal service prior to demolition and grading at the Project site. Appropriate safety and engineering controls will be taken per the Health and Safety Code (Cal OSHA regulations California Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect construction crew and the public. The project applicant must obtain GPP staff aooroval of the soil management plan discussed in the GPP staff letter dated April 9. 2013, before any soil excavation commences [in] the vicinity of Buildings A and B. E Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4 -1: Revisions to the Initial Study /Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for 180 El Camino Real Chapter/ Section Page Revision 3.8 3 -27 The third bullet under "Mitigation Measure HAZ - I" is amended as follows: To mitigate potential migration of volatile contamination to indoor air, the Project will include active or passive vapor control systems over the area of the former Unocal site (proposed Building A area) as shown in Figure 3 -1 as approved with a vapor mitigation system approved by SMCHSGPP. The applicant will incorporate into the design of Building A remediation wells and appurtenant equipment (e.g. piping) approved by GPP staff so residual hydrocarbons can be remediated during building occupancy to levels that no longer pose a significant risk to human health, environment, and water quality as determined by GPP staff or the State Water Resources Control Board. 3.9 3 -30 A mitigation measure is added following the subheading "c, d, e) Drainage ": Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: The project proponent is required to: • Submit drainage calculations to demonstrate that the Dost development discharge rate from the site does not exceed the existing rate. If it is determined that the future discharge rate exceeds the existing rate, an on -site storm water detention system must be designed and incorporated into the project. • Incorporate trash management measures into the design elements of the storm drainage systems and appurtenances, to the extent feasible. Trash collecting devices should be installed at storm drain inlets and maintained by the owner. City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real This page intentionally left blank. 12 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) fulfills Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 which requires adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when mitigation measures are required to avoid or reduce a proposed projects significant environmental effects. The MMRP is only applicable if the City of South San Francisco decides to approve the proposed Project. The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts discussed in the IS /MND. The table below is arranged in the following five columns: • Recommended mitigation measures; • Timing for implementation of the mitigation measures; • Monitoring action; • Party or parties responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures; and, • A blank for entry of completion date as mitigation occurs 13 City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real 180 El Camino Real — Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification Timing/ Mitigation Measure Schedule Monitoring Monitoring Date Action Responsibility Completed AQ -1: Project applicant to include the use of Prior to maximum 0 g/L emission VOC paint for interior issuance of Verify City of South surfaces and 100 g/L emission VOC paint for building requirements San Francisco exterior surface in the construction contract. permits and are met during and during each construction construction construction contractor phase CULT -1: The Project Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the grading and construction contracts as a condition of approval of permit: • Prior to ground disturbance, the depths of impact for the proposed Project be adequately determined to assess locations that have the potential to disturb sensitive landforms. This information should be compared with archival research to determine the appropriate locations for geo- archaeological testing. A report containing "next- step" recommendations should be provided.15 • Prior to the initiation of construction or ground- disturbing activities, the Project City of South Applicant will ensure that all construction During Verify San Francisco personnel involved in ground- disturbing construction requirements and activities shall receive environmental training of each phase are met during construction from a qualified archaeologist that will construction contractor include discussion of what constitutes cultural resources, the possibility of buried cultural resources, how to recognize such possible buried cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are encountered. Project Applicant shall ensure that project personnel involved in ground disturbing activities are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, 14 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 180 El Camino Real — Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification Timing/ Mitigation Measure Schedule Monitoring Monitoring Date Action Responsibility Completed heat - affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, ceramics or other items often found in refuse deposits and buried features, such as privy pits and foundations; • If unknown potential or unique archaeological resources are encountered during construction, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (f), "provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction" should be instituted. Work should be temporarily halted within 50 feet or as deemed appropriate by the archaeologist and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the find and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources." • If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the Project proponent and /or lead agency and the qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City, which shall assure implementation of appropriate measures recommended by the archaeologist. The City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) such as plans for methodical excavation of the portions of the site shall be instituted and results in detailed technical reports for submittal to the Northwest Information Center. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while measure for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried 15 City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real 180 El Camino Real — Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification Timing/ Mitigation Measure Schedule Monitoring Monitoring Date Action Responsibility Completed out. All significant archaeological materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program report prepared by the qualified archaeologist for submittal to the Northwest Information Center. CULT -2: In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find or as deemed appropriate by a paleontologist shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]). A qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the City of South potential resource, and assess the significance of During Verify San Francisco the find under the criteria set forth in Section construction requirements and 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The of each hase p are met during construction paleontologist shall notify the appropriate construction contractor agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. CULT -3: In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during construction or ground- breaking activities, all City of South work shall immediately halt and the San Mateo During Verify San Francisco County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the construction requirements and remains, and following the procedures and of each phase are met during construction protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e) (1) of construction contractor the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the 16 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 180 El Camino Real — Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification Timing/ Mitigation Measure Schedule Monitoring Monitoring Date Action Responsibility Completed California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease within a 50 -foot radius of the find until appropriate arrangements are made. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously. HAZ -1: Prior to approval of a building permit, obtain case closure at Chevron Facility 306441 (Former Unocal Service Station No. 6980) located at 190 -192 El Camino Real, South San Francisco (Assessor's Parcel Number 014 - 183 -110). If case closure cannot be obtained, the following must be completed as a condition of approval: • Prepare and implement a remediation plan and gain project approval from San Mateo City of South County Health Systems Groundwater San Francisco Protection System (SMCHS -GPP). Completion of and San • To ensure safety from potential harm to case closure or Mateo County construction crew during excavation and Prior to verification Health construction, the Project applicant will building that Systems determine the depth of soil contamination permit requirements Groundwater from the latest soil and groundwater sampling issuance are met during Protection reports for the site of former Unocal service construction System prior to demolition and grading at the Project (SMCHS- site. Appropriate safety and engineering GPP) controls will be taken per the Health and Safety Code (Cal OSHA regulations California Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect construction crew and the public. The project applicant must obtain GPP staff approval of the soil management plan discussed in the GPP staff letter dated April 9, 2013, before any soil excavation commences in the vicinity of Buildings A and B. 17 City of South San Francisco 180 El Camino Real 180 El Camino Real — Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification Timing/ Mitigation Measure Schedule Monitoring Monitoring Date Action Responsibility Completed • To mitigate potential migration of volatile contamination to indoor air, the Project will include active or passive vapor control systems over the area of the former Unocal site (proposed Building A area) as shown in Figure 3 -1 as approved with a vapor mitigation system approved by SMCHSGPP. The applicant will incorporate into the design of Building A remediation wells and appurtenant equipment (e.g. piping) approved by GPP staff so residual hydrocarbons can be remediated during building occupancy to levels that no longer pose a significant risk to human health, environment, and water quality as determined by GPP staff or the State Water Resources Control Board. HYDRO -1: The project proponent is required to: • Submit drainage calculations to demonstrate that the post development discharge rate from the site does not exceed the existing Prior to rate. If it is determined that the future building Verification discharge rate exceeds the existing rate, an permit requirements City of South on -site storm water detention system must be issuance and are met during San Francisco designed and incorporated into the project. during each construction • Incorporate trash management measures into phase of the design elements of the storm drainage construction systems and appurtenances, to the extent feasible. Trash collecting devices should be installed at storm drain inlets and maintained by the owner. 18