Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntitial Study Terrabay Specific Plan 08-01-1995 I I" I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I t I INITIAL STUDY FOR THE TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION Prepared for the City of South San Francisco by WAGSTAFFANDASSOC~TES Urban and Environmental Planners August 1995 WF'StI$f8lMlSC\CHKLST.548 i 54.P Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page I CONTENTS Preface IV. fm! ........... ........ .... ....... ........................... ... .... Iii I. II. Background ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 1 Envlronmentallmpactslln. Discussion of environmental Evaluation 10 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Earth Air . . Water Plant Ufe Animal Ute Noise . . . . . Light and Glare Land Use . . . . . . Natural Resources Risk of Upset Population Housing . . . TransportatlonlCircuJatlon/Parking Public Service Energy . Utilities Human Health Aesthetics Recreation Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance eo. .. . .. .. .. .. 11 13 14 16 17 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 22 24 24 25 26 26 26 27 Determination 29 ........ ..... ... ........ ... ............... .... ... , ."" ...:. " ~'t~". _'.:GNt 1 "'ft'., WP51lS48W1SC\CHKl.ST.548 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial ::ituay Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST I. Back2l"Ound 1. Applktltio,,: 2. Project Descriptio,,: "'\5fBIAISC\CHKLST.548 Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement extension A. SETTING 1. Realonal Location The project site is located In the northern portion of the city of South San Francisco. in northern San Mateo County. San Bruno Mountain State and County Park in unincorporated San Mateo County. and the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco are located to the north. San Francisco Bay to the east. San Francisco International Airport and the city of San Bruno to the south. and the town of Colma and the city of Daly City to the west U.S. Highway 101 (US 101)-the Bayshore freeway-provides regional access to the site via the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. 2. Local Settlna The proposed project site is located along the lower southeastern slopes of San Bruno Mountain at the northern edge of the city of South San Francisco. Portions of the site proposed for development are within the city of South San Francisco (annexed to the city in 1983); remaining portions of the site. proposed to remain as open space. are within unincorporated San Mateo County. The site Is generally bounded on the north by San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, by Bayshore Boulevard to the east, by Randolph Avenue and Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard to the south. and by Hillside Elementary School and portions of San Bruno Mountain State and County Park to the west. Present access to the site Is from Bayshore Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, Randolph Avenue and Hillside Boulevard. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 WP$1154BlA1SC1CH1CZ548 \. Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 2 3. General Site Characteristics The 332-acre project site is approximately -L --shaped, along the south- and east-facing slopes of San Bruno Mountain. The site consists of rolling, gently to steeply sloping terrain. Site elevations vary greatly from 25 feet above sea level at the Airport BoulevardlRandolph Avenue intersection to 575 feet above sea level at the tops of slopes along the northwest edge of the site. The site contains several spur ridges, knolls, ravines and swales. A promontory knoll is located at the southeastern comer of the site adjacent to the Sister Cities BoulevardlAjrport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Nearly half of the site contains slopes with gradients greater than 30 percent. Although grading and many common Infrastructure improvements for the first phase of the approved project (Phase I) have already been completed, the projed site remains primarily as open space. Site vegetation is predominantly non-native grassland on the lower portions proposed for development, with native grasses and soft chaparral on the higher, steeper slopes, and riparian-like vegetation in the ravines between knolls. The site Is immediately adjacent to the expansive open space areas of San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a 2,064- acre regional open space with developed trails and recreational facilities. The site is also within the planning area of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which was formulated to protect habitat for endangered butterflies. A Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) transmission line and easement cross the site near North Spruce Avenue. 4. Site History San Bruno Mountain is a large expanse of undeveloped open space amidst some of the most densely developed areas In the Bay Area Over the past three decades, considerable attention and controversy have been focused on the area by private developers, public agencies, concerned individuals and environmental organizations. Extensive planning efforts have , "'""t ... ..tl:'~'~f~aewi~.~:~~' . ...~,'i} '.64< . . ~, , Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 .548 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 3 been made to balance protection of the mountain environment with the increased demand for housing. 1f111~ ~.hw.Jl.~GeneraI~nr waa .I~.-ean MalbO Cdta~.. an Inn'aI afbtlO d~~rporated-iand-on-san Bruno Mountain. This proposal included development of the unincorporated Terrabay project site. In 1976, a county general plan amendment for San BI'Uno Mountain was approved which limited development to three planning areas- the northeast ridge planning area, the Brisbane planning area, and the South San Francisco plann:ing area ~ " Fr~~.r ~_:- ~~~~~_lh~It!rrat5aYD1:Q~~te) w8i~s.ilnated...b~b..kounty as a.P9.!LrlJI~Q.iJ 101'- .' resiienTmalitoommercfar develo inenl .-.--.- ----- ------____._-_____e --.- , The presence of endangered butternies became a key element in the planning of .San Bruno Mountain~ _~ to~-counlV'sj97S' ~tion of a ,,eneraf.Dl8n ~t, portionS of ltMi1QQunIa.In ~were.dlsa:Wl8d 10 provide ilablfat 1 _ ._ ______ __ for a federaJly-Dsted endangered sP~ In 1976, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had designated the mission blue and San Bruno elfin butterflies as -endangered- pursuant to the provisions of the Erldangered Species Act of 1973. Another butterfly, the callippa silverspot was proposed for listing by the USFWS in 1978. .ro ascertain the extent of these resources, the County commissioned an extensive biological study of the mission blue and callippe silverspot and other species of concern. melrnc:lngsollfti~~:::.._ the bc.o:t1& of1tJe-sarr13runoteifl.Area ~-:-:,.~::-":".;..;~ CoriSeiV8iio~~1n'1981. 'A-portlOtf-ottfi Te~i)"ir~e.CtjSite Is included In;lhe"HCP area.' " ,- The Terrabay project was approved by the city of South San Francisco in 1982 and 1983. Iba...iT'~ 6peQificPIan was adopted by the city1n 1982 and a tlabltat conservation ~that same year. In 1983, the city annexed the 203-acre portion of thft project site proposed for development and amended the city zoning ordinance to add the Terrabay SpecifIc Plan Dis1rict. A Development Agreement for the project was adopted in 1983. In 1989, a precise plan and vesting tentative sltb:lvision map were approved for Phase I; a final subdivision map was approved for Phase I in 1990. j.3.3",~1 ~ .;~,6 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 4 Recently, a new applicant has requested city approval of a renewed construction program to compete Phase I of the development In order to proceed on an interim basis. the City Council In April 1995 confirmed the tolling of the expiration dates of the specific plan and development agreement to February 14, 1997. Since some components of Phase I, as well as Phases II and III, may start after this specific plan and development agreement extension expires, the applicant has requested further extension of the specific plan and development agreement entitlements. This extension request represen1s the proposed action or -Project" considered in this Initial Study. B. PROPOSED PROJECT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Note: With the exception of 8 Slightly reduced number of Phase I reSidential units, no substantive changes are proposed to the Terrabay project physical characteristics described In the 1982 certJned ElR approved by the city In 1982. Only the timing of the project entitlements would change-l.e., would be extended. For purposes of determining In this initial study whether any potential new slgnIncant Impacts may occur or whether any aspects of the previous ElR wig otherwise need to be updated or reevaluated, a summary description of the proJeel as previously approved Is provided below. The applicant, SunChase GA California I, Inc., has requested extension of the T errabay specific plan and development agreement to allow for completion of Phase I of the Terrabay development program. The applicant proposes to first Implement specific plan Phase I, with no substantive changes to the previously approved precise plan provisions for Phase I (up to 293 homes). Eventually, the city also anticipates applicant implementation of the more conceptual specific plan Phases II and III.' These subsequent phases generally 'The supplemental EIR to be prepared for the specific plan and development agreernef'j extension wi. provide a less detailed assessment of Phases II and III, since the ulimate physical charaCtertstlc:l. sequencing and timing of these subsequent phases are more conceptual. When these subsequeIl..--.d phases are to be developed and eventuaDy come before the city for required approvals in the fuIan.. more specific Information would be available and addtionaI, more detailed environmental review, . opportunties for pubic Input, would be undertaken at that time.~j ;l. t A,:~.. . , ...,,' '. .~ '.' ~ . .., . t .<i-t 1'WP51~Hla.ST.5:'" . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . I . '. , ~. Wagstaff and Associates City Of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 M'SfI548USC1CHKLST.54B Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension PageS provide for up to an additional 428 homes, 669.300 square feet of commercial space, and supporting community facilities and infrastructure. The overall characteristics of the 332-acre Terrabay development plan are described first. followed by a more specific description of project Phase I. 1. Overall DeveloDment ConceDt The approved Terrabay project layout is diagrammed on the next page. Approximately 200 acres of the 332-acre project site are proposed to be developed; the remaining 132 acres (about 40 percent of the site), consisting of the higher- elevation, more steeply sloping and less disturbed portions of the site, are to be pennanenUy dedicated to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park and the HCP area. a. Overall Land Use. As summarized in Table 1, the project includes the following specific land use components: . 136 single family detached homes (Terrabay Park); . 510 single family attached homes: 381 townhomes (Terrabay Village and Terrabay Woods) and 129 terraced units (Terrabay Commons); · 99 single family condominiums (Terrabay Point); . 11-acre offlC8/restaurantlhealth club complex; . 33-acre hotelltech trade center complex; . 20 acres of land for public roadway rights-of-way; . 10 acres of common community facilities areas; and . 132 acres of open space to be dedicated to the HCP area b. Overall Circulation and Access. The project would be served by an internal road system consisting of a single local pubnc street and several private roads and lanes in the residential portion, and a private collector street in the commercial portion of the project. \ i";;.l . ''-::\:\. ~i_ -, iL-~ i ~'\. ,~ " " ", ~:\} .~~, ~"'I.""""'....." -;t:~.= I, ~-'.:';~~ 1fi.,;.S''-i;~ c . \!.~,_ln., ;:~" ..... ., . I . "...,,;.~,f-~.. /' _ _' ,',' a.. ,~._s.,:~~~-~... ,~~/.. "'~,.. -~[-.- '~~' '.'-.. ," .',,"~' ~.:~"...:~~( ,,~:4." "L~" ;'. '~:-:'i~... ';,~i~~~\:~> J'~ .:'0 -;:. ": j " ~ '# =:i 5i ~l <: ~:! :::: 0,. ~ r- fQV . . . . . . . . . . Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 7 Table 1 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT LAYOUT CHARACTERISTICS Number of Acre808 Owellna Units Dwelling Units oer AJ::re Residential Terrabay Vilage Townhomes 27.8 181- 6.5 38.8 1W 3.5 11.1 57 5.1 21.1 143 6.8 9.3 58 6.2 7.0 71 10.1 -1ll 99 -U 126.5 745 5.9 Terrabay Park Single Family Detached Terrabay Woods Townhomes (west) Townhomes (east) Terrabay Commons Terraced Urits (west) Terraced Units (east) Terrabay Point Condonirium Units Subtotal ComfTIJnity Fadlties Areas Child Care Center & Tot Park Rec. Center Complex PublicSlreet Unear Park Unear Greenbelt Subtotal 0.5 3.2 20.1 1.3 ~ 29.6 CommetCial Office Condos & Health Club Hotel Hgh Tech Trade Center Subtotal Subtotal Developed Acreage Open Space to be Dedicated to the Habitat Conservation Area TOTAL PROJECT SITE 11.3 17.3 ~ 43.8 199.9 132.1 332.0 SOURCE: Terrabay Specific Plan, 1982 (as amended). --rhe Specific Plan (1982) aAows up to 181 townhomes in Terrabay Village and 136 single-family detached homes in Terrabay Park. Phase I Precise Plan appIOval (1989) ;s for up to 168 townhomes and 125 single-fanily detached homes. WPlf1548USC1CHla.ST548 )'-1S< '~~, ~t",~~ Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 WP51~548 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 8 Freeway access to the project would be provided via the Oyster Point Interchange and, for southbound traffic. the Bayshore Boulevard scissors ramps. Arterial access to the project would be provided via Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard and Airport Boulevard-Bayshore Boulevard. The main entrance to 1he project's residential portion Is opposite Jefferson Avenue. A second entrance is located near North Spruce Avenue. As part of the Phase I improvements already completed, Sister Cities Boulevard (referred to as the Hillside Extension in the previous EIR) has been extended as a four- lane arterial roadway from the former intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Randolph Avenue to Bayshore Boulevard. Access to the proposed commercial development would be provided via Bayshore Boulevard at a single entrance opposite the US 101 Bayshore Boulevard scissors ramps. The project's internal roadway system features a single public roadway, South San Francisco Drive (constructed); all other roadways would be privately owned and maintained. The residential and commercial portions of the project would have separate access and circulation. c. Overall Gradina Acoroach. The project grading concept would include stepped building pads up the swales, leaving the knolls intact or preserving their form to the extent possible. Earth slopes would generally be graded at two horizontal to one vertical (2:1). Exceptions include the Sister Cities Boulevard cut near Terrabay Point and several other small areas where steeper slopes are proposed to preserve existing land forms. These areas are adjacent to private roads, driveways, and buffer areas where structures are not proposed. Slopes would be terraced and drainage ditches provided to control debris fall and surface drainage. Approximately 1,870,000 cubic yards of cut and 1,900,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed, requiring approximately I 50.000 cubic yards of imported fill. Phase I rough grading operations have been completed, including grading in Terrabay Village, Terrabay Park, and a portion of Terrabay Woods on the west end of the project, with a borrow operation in portions of Terrabay Commons and T errabay Point The grading for Sister Cities Boulevard and cl . wr. ~c~ ~ , . . . , . . , , II II . . , , . II ,t " , Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 WPfII54S\A1SC\CHKLST.548 InitIal :sway Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension PageS rough gracing of a haul road from Terrabay Point to Terrabay Village were included in this completed grading phase. (Sister Cities Boulevard has been constructed.) The second phase of the grading operation would encompass the remainder of the residential and commercial development areas. Winterization and erosion control provisions are proposed to protect graded areas during the phased grading period. d. Drainaae. Runoff from slopes above the project site. as well as from the project's on-site drainage system. would be intercepted and transported in storm drain trunk lines under US 101 to an existing drainage ditch which parallels the . freeway. and on to the bay. e. Water. Water service would be provided by California Water Service from the San Francisco Water District"water main in Bayshore Boulevard at a point near the Sister Cities BoulevardlBayshore Boulevard intersection. Booster pumps (aJrrenUy not constructed) would lift water to the higher elevations of the project and to a one-million~allon storage tank (constructed) at the 400-foot elevation near Terrabay Park. Carlfornia Water Service would assume maintenance of the water tank and service mains. f. Sewer. On-site gravity sewer mains and interceptors would connect to the city sewer system in Airport Boulevard. An off-site parallel interceptor would be constructed in the near-capacity segment of Airport Boulevard between Randolph Avenue and Adolph Avenue to carry project wastewater flows. 2. Phase I DeveloDment Terrabay Phase I. the principal subject of the aJrrent application. consists of continued development of the Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park neighborhoods at the western end of the site. a. Phase I ComDOnents Already ComDleted. Most common infrastruclure and improvements for Phase I have already been completed. Grading for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park has been completed. Sister Cities Boulevard and the "" .J4i. ~ nG\I.HGII GIIU ~~laleS City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 10 landscaped buffer have been constructed. The associated Randolph Street cul-de-sac is now under construction. South San Francisco Drive has been constructed through Terrabay Park. The Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Avenu~South San Francisco Drive and Hillside BoulevardlSister Cities Boulevard intersections have been signalized. Play field improvements have been Installed at Hillside Elementary School. Sewer, water and storm drainage improvements for Terrabay Village and Terrabay Park have been installed. Finally, Fire Station No. 5 has been constructed and is in operation. Private intemal roadways have aI$o been construded. b. Terrabav Villaae. The approved Terrabay Village precise plan consists of up to 168 townhouse lots developed at densities of approximately 6.0 units per acre at the westernmost end of the project site adjacent to Hillside Elementary School. The lots would be laid out in hillside tiers along five branching cul-de-sacs. c. Terrabav Park. The approved Terrabay Park precise plan consists of up to 125 single family residences arranged in clusters of three and four at densities of approximately 3.2 units per acre. The lots would be laid out in hillside tiers , along five branching cul-de-sacs. 3. ApplklUll: SunChase GA California I, Inc. 4. Address and Phone: 6001 North 24th Street, Suite A Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 468-1090 n. Environmental ImDacts and m. Discussion or Environmental Evaluation 1 The purpose of this evaluation is to identify 1J!!! potential significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed project which were not considered in 1he previouS EIR, , t ~r~ a . !~,.t: 1SectJons II and III of the citYs Environmental Checklst have been combined in this InIIII ..... provide for easier understanclng of initial study determinations regardng whether there .. ...~ potential significant impacts not considered in the previous EIR, or whether there are areas...... analyses in the previous EIR wi. need to be updated or re-evaluated. }j-:'t:". ,.,.:..;.,.~ -',- :.,.--,._:~,!-", ',f-! 'f~;.t,1~"~' ~'I. 'HKLST. ~~. _~ ,~..~".."..,,,,,,.,_~.;;;.,.,,_,>>~rrr~ ( .iiI"'V", -",:!,:,.,)"".,.;J';; .-""-':C..' ".' ',. : c";\~ ':~~.'.i-"':~:;*, .,;~~;;'.I ~",f., . , , , , , , , . I . . . Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 11 and to identify any aspects of the previous EIR will need to be updated and reevaluated, in the supplemental environmental impad report. 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? Answer: MAYSE Explanation: The principal geotechnical issues associated with the projed involve existing and future slope instability. Numerous areas of landslidlng and soil creep have been identified in the project area and upslope of the property, as desaibed in the previous (1982) EIR. Substantial additional information has also been gathered during Phase I grading regarding the extent and distribution of landslides and other geologic features. Since preparation of the previOUS (1982) EIR, the site has experienced several wet winters, notably 1982, 1983, 1986. and 1995. As a result, landslide and other onsite slope conditions may have changed significantly in the interim. In addition, the state of professional knowledge regarding landslides in general has advanced as a result of the wet winters of the early to mid-1980s. New or revised site-specific geotechnical information may have been developed since the 1982 EIR, including information developed during Phase I grading activity and subsequent slope stability studies. which may warrant revision of the previous impad and mitigation conclusions; and new published general information may Indicate that certain site conditions, impad potentials, or mitigation approaches identified In the 1982 EIR should be supplemented or revised. b. Significant disruptions. displacements. compaction or overcovering of soil? Answer: NO Explanation: These impacts were adequately addressed and adequate mitigation measures were recommended in the previOUS EIR. There is no new Information, nor have there been substantial changes In the projed or the circumstances under which the "'f15fBlAISC1CHIa548 Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 12 project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. c. Significant change in topography or ground surface relief features? Answer: Explanation: NO These impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Answer: Explanation: NO There are no unique geologic features on the projed site that would be affeded by the proposed development. e. Any significant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? Answer: Explanation: NO These impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project Is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. f. Significant changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Answer: Explanation: WP5tl548lMlSClCHKLST.548 NO These impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes In the , }.... project or the circumstances under which the project Is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these lssueI.l II . !'~ ~..~~. ~ - ,~~~f";'~: -;~ '- ~_:... ~". . . . -- ... ...-~,,-- ~- "i.:.;...c~;, . ''','' _ _;i . . ,:./..1::'.. ' ......"....--. . II . II II II II II II II II . . . . . . II ,. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 InitiaJ Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 13 g. Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Same as for item 1.a above. 2. Ail'. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The air quality analysis in the previous EIR must be reevaluated and updated to reflect the current environmental impact assessment requirements and standards of the Bay Area Air Quality M~agement District (BAAOMD), including state and federal carbon monoxide standards which may have changed since 1982, BAAOMD thresholds of significance, and new and revised local. state and regional air quality plans and programs. b. The creation of significant objectional odors? Answer: Explanation: NO The construction of conventional residential and commercial development does not typically involve the creation of significant construction period or pennanent odors. Nothing about the project or its location would change these typical conditions., c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Answer: Explanation: WP51\54B1A1SC1CHKLST.548 NO The scale and nature of the project would prevent it from having any influence on local or regional air movement, moisture. temperature. or climate. ~~'>- ,,~P:J1:~ ". Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 14 3. WGter. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Answer: Explanation: NO The site does not incfude any marine or fresh water courses. Runoff-related impacts would not be great enough to affect the course or water movements in the San Francisco Bay, to which the project site runoff would eventually drain. I b. Changes. in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The description of existing topographic and drainage conditions in the 1982 EIR may need updating regarding drainage improvements installed since 1982 as part of the Phase I improvements, and other pertinent changes since preparation of the 1982 EIR. Current drainage facility conditions should be described based on the city's current storm drainage master plan, including existing capacities, downstream drainage features. and areas of flooding (this will include examination of current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and/or revisions). Mitigation measures specified In 1he 1982 EIR may need to be re-evaluated and revised to reduce or avoid project-related impacts on the local storm drain system and on flooding problems within affected drainages. Measures may include a revised identification of drainage infrastructure improvements needed to mitigate increases In runoff and flooding potential. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Answer: Explanation: CHKLST.548 MAYBE No part of the project site is within a 10o-year flood zone. However, much of the land east of US 101 and norll of ~/~, Oyster Point Boulevard is in a 10o-year flood zone. n." ~'J flooding analysis in the previous EIR must be reevaIuaII8d, '. updated to reflect changes in drainage features, system capacities and associated ftoodlng potentials. .~ !,;", I I I I I I ul Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 -- II . 4 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 15 revisions of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps which may have been made since 1982. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Answer: Explanation: NO Project runOff changes, which would drain directly to San Francisco Bay, would not increase the amount of surface water in the bay. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Answer: Explanation: I ~ II I II ~ II , - . . f. MAYBE These impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. However, there may have been changes in jurisdictional water quality control policies, standards, and criteria which have occurred since 1982 that warrant revision to the previous EIR impact and mitigation findings. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Answer: Explanation: NO According to the 1982 EIR, project grading is not expected to be deep enough to interrupt ground water flows on the site. No changes have occurred in the project or in existing groundwater conditions that would affect this conclusion. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Answer: Explanation: WP511648W1SC1CHKLST.548 NO According to the 1982 EIR, the project would not affect the quantity of groundwaters. No changes have occurred in the project or in existing groundwater conditions that could affect this conclusion. . wP"t\.;.r,,!, 54fi Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 16 h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The 1982 desaiption of existing local water source and distribution capabilities, and the ability to serve anticipated buildout. may need updating. Slmilarty, project and cumulative water demands and the adequacy of the existing supply and clstribution system to accommodate these increases should be reevaluated. Pkmt Life. ~1ll the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? 4. Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Two principal biological data updating needs have been identified: (1) the need to update the 1982 EIR to reflect current knowledge of the distribution of rare and endangered plants and wildlife known on San Bruno Mountain, and (2) the need to update the desaibed status of Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) implementation, both mountain-wide and for the Terrabay project site. Principal biotic issues and areas on which the 1982 EIR update should focus are: the status of restoration activities on the Terrabay site; changes in population and dis1ribu1lon 01 known rare and endangered species; presence of addtionaI species of special concem on the site, such as the burrowing owl; and changes in the status of the callippe silverspot butterfly from candidate species to a species proposed for listing as endangered. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of pllDll' Answer: Explanation: MAYSE . :- )-tllJ.. Same as for a. above. ~ . :- ~~:;...i)l; I I I I I I I I I J , J J II . . . . . . . . . . . . - - Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 17 c. . Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for a. above. d Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Answer: NO Explanation: The 1982 EIR indicates that the project site has not been used in recent times for agriculture and does not contain significant potentials for agricultural production. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for 4a above. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for 4a above. c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for 4a above. d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for 4a above. WPS'~KLST.548 Jj Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3.1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 18 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The noise section of the 1982 EIR should be reevaluated to confirm the validity of or update previous measurements and conclusions (including the implications of updated traffic volume projections) and to reflect changes in ambient noise levels and/or noise standards. b. Exposur~ of people to severe noise levels? Answer. Explanation: MAYBE Same as for a above. 7. Light IUUl Glare. Will the proposal produce new light glare? Answer: Explanation: NO These impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. 8. lAnd Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Answer: Explanation: "'-...., WPS1I548'MlSC\CHKLST.548 MAYSE An updated description of the existing land use and open space setting should be provided, including an updated description of the local, citywide, and San Bruno Mountain open space system, nearby residential development patterns and densities, and the type and condition of nearby commercial and industrial uses. The land use and open space impacts of the project should then be reevaluated and described, including: · Any changes in or new direct impacts on the characI8r of the site itself; J . -;>',,~..::,.~ . iii Ii Ii , Ii II ~ II .. II . , . .. . . . i . -- I . Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 19 · Project development plan compatibility with the adjacent Randolph Avenue residential neighborhood, the adjacent major arterials and freeway, and adjacent and nearby commercial uses; and · Any changes in or new project impacts on the vicinity, citywide, and regional land use and open space pattem. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in the rate of use of any natural resources? Answer: Explanation; NO The project is a standard residential and commercial development which would not increase the rate of use of natural resources more than any other conventional subdivision activity within the city. 10. Risk 01 Upset Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Answer: Explanation; NO The potential for such impacts and necessary mitigation measures were adequately addressed in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Answer: Explanation: WPStI54B'MfSC1CHKLST.548 NO The project would not directly affect any known emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. ;<':t- . " .0.;, ,~t~ ..v.'..... ~t' Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3, 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 20 11. Populotioll. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The 1982 EIR description of the existing population and housing inventory In the city. and special housing needs. should be updated. Project impacts on the city's population and housing stock should then be briefly reevaluated and described to provide a statistical basis for identification elsewhere In the SEIR of population and housing based project impacts (public services, schools. etc.). 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Same as for 11 above. Also. the previous EIR should be reevaluated to identify project relationships to current city policies regarding jobslhousing balance. special housing needs. incfusionary housing. and housing location. 13. TransportationlCirculDlionlParldng. Wtll the proposal result in: . a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The traffic impacts of the project on the off-site roadway system should be re-evaluated to reflect current citywide traffic assumptions. with particular attention to the impacts on the soon-to-be-completed Oyster Point Boulevard interchange with US 101. Prior data may need adjustment to reftecl ,changed conditions at the interchange. Intersection level of service (LOS) operation should be re-evaluated for each of the following intersections:' -:d~";ns .~ . Airport Boulevard-Bayshore BoulevardlSis1Br_~;.f /.~.... ': Boulevard. . 7 l j, .'" ; . '~ to city staff concurrence with intersections to be analyz~. .548 ------ . . . ~ . . . . -- -- . II .. . I . II Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 21 . Other key intersections along Hillside Boulevard-Sister Cities Boulevard, . Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, . Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque AvenuelUS 101 northbound on- and off-ramps, and . Bayshore BoulevardlUS 101 southbound off-ramp (or revised southbound on- and off- hook ramps). The update scope should also include a qualitative analysis of the operation of project minor driveway connections to Hillside BoulevardlSister Cities Boulevard. Updated mitigation measures should be provided for any identified significant impacts. The discussion should clearly cfastinguish between fair share mitigation responsibilities associated with Phase I, and future mitigations necessary to carry out subsequent project phases. b. .Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Answer: NO Explanation: These impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or to circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken which wRl require reevaluation of these issues. c. Substantial impact upon existing transponation systems? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for a. above. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as fOf a. above~ WP51\54SlA&SC\CHKLST.54B ..,."" Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 22 e. Alterations to waterborne. rail or air traffic? Answer: Explanation: NO There are no local water. rail. or air traffic systems in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be directly affected by the project. The project would not impact regional water. rail. or air traffic systems. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles. bicyclist or pedestrians Answer: Explanation: t MAYBE Same as for a above. 14. Public Servke. Will the proposal have an effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? Answer: Explanation: b. Police protection? Answer: Explanation: WP511548W1SC\CHKL.ST.548 MAYBE Information in the previous EIR on existing fire station locations. response times. backup service arrangements. firefighter-to-population ratio. ISO rating. and facilities and equipment adequacy to serve project and vicinity needs should be upda~. Potential project impacts related to increased demands on fire services. the adequacy of existing and planned personnel. facilities and equipment to serve the area. and site-specific fire prevention needs (e.g.. emergency access. fire breaks for hazards associated with San Bruno Mountain. and other needs) should be reevaluated. MAYBE Information in the previous EIR on existing station locations. beats. response time. officer-to-populatlon ratio. and related facilities and equipment adequacy should be updated. Potential project and cumulative impacts on police service demands and the 'adequacy of planned personnel and facilities to serve these demands will be reevaluated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . tI . Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 23 c. Schools? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Information on the current location, capacity and enrollment of existing and planned school district facilities serving the project area should be updated, Induding to the extent possible. existing and anticipated enrollment vs. expansion capacity conditions. The desctfption should be based on review of recent enrollment and facilities studies and other data provided by the district. The comparative demands of project Phase I and cumulative buildout on current existing and planned school district facifrties. and the adequacy of district school plans to accommodate demands. should be descnbed based on enrollment multipliers provided by the district. d. Parks or other recreational facUities? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Previous information related to parks and recreation facilities in the city and the project vicinity (including neatby school facilities and associated public use arrangements) should be updated and compared to the city's current park and recreation standards. The project park provisions should then be reevaluated with respect to local neighborhood park provision standards and guidelines and the updated information regarding existing and projected community-wide park and recreation needs. e. Maintenance of public .facilities, including roads? Answer: NO Explanation: These impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or to circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. f. Other governmental services? Answer: NO WPS1\54BUSC\CHKLST.548 '~II) ~#;< -141'"1 ,.... 5.::. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Explanation: In itiaI Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 24 These impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or to circumstances under Which the project is to be undertaken which will require reevaluation of these Issues. 15. Ene,.". Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Answer. Explanation: NO The project would not result in any unusual usage of fuels or energy other than normal usage associated with the construction and occupancy of residential and commercial development b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Answer. Explanation: . NO The project would use existing natural gas and electricity supplies at rates expected of conventional residential and commercial development 16. Utilitks. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Answer: Explanation: NO The project would require normal natural gas service which Is readily available in the project vicinity. b. Communications systems? Answer: Explanation: IS48'MISC1CHKLST.SU' .1,_>~ . , NO The project would require normal telephone and television service which is readily available In .~. vicinity. . co ,r'i!!i II "~--,-< ~ . II . . II . . II . II II . . . . . ,. Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 25 c. Water? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as explanation for item 3h. d. Sewer or septic tanks? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: The sewer analysis in the previous EIR should be reevaluated to consider the current capacity of existing collection and treatment facilities to handle project and cumulative wastewater generation demands. e. Storm water drainage? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: The drainage analysis in the previous EIR should be updated to consider changes in the adequacy of the offsite drainage system to accommodate project and cumulatiVe stormwater flows. f. Solid waste and disposal? Answer: NO Explanation: The project would generate solid waste at rates typical of similar residential and commercial development in the vicinity, which is currently served adequately by South San Francisco Scavengers. Project impacts on this service would be offset through payment of collection fees. 17. HU1IUUI Health. W1l1 the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Answer: NO Explanation: The site is currently open space; no hazardous substances associated with the site were identified in the previous EIR analysis that could result in a potential human health hazard. WPStl54BlA4rSClCHKLST.548 .\ii, ~i }~ W$'..dIS4Qil< Wagstaff and Associates City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 26 b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Answer: Explanation: NO Same as for a. above. 18. Aestlutks. wm the proposal result in the obstructi~ of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? Answer: Explanation: NO Project visual impacts were adequately addressed and mitigation measures recommended in the previous EIR. There is no new information nor have there been substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require reevaluation of these issues. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Answer: Explanation: 20. Cu1tural Resources. MAYBE Same as for 14d above. a. Will the proposal result in the alter.ation of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Answer: Explanation: MAYBE, The 1982 EIR identified three prehistoric resources and traces of former historic activities on the project site, and recommended appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts. The potential for cIscovery of cultural resources on the site should be reevaluated based on a' new file search by the State Historic Resource Fie System . ."5' ~, Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State UnNerIIr..' . The description of the potential impacts of project lie ~ and grading activities on surface or subsurface ..' should then be updated. Recommended mitigation should also be modified andIOI added to, as :/J . . I' I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wagstaff and Associates , City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Ex1ension Page Z1 address any potential new impacts discovered as a result of the updated file search. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Answer: MAYBe Explanation: Same as for a above. c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: Same as for a above. d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Answer: NO Explanation: There are no known existing religious or saaed uses associated with the project site. 21. Mandtdory Findings 01 Sigllijicanee. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the envirODIJlel14 substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eHmin~te a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Answer: MAYBE Explanation: This Initial Study has determined that the following factors require preparation of a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) under section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA): significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous 1982 EtR may be expected as a result of the projed; substantial changes have occurred with, respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that wID require important revisions to WP51I54BW1SC1CHKLST.548 ~,::;'i\' . Wagstaff and Associates , City of South San Francisco August 3. 1995 Initial Study T errabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Page 28 the previous EIR; and new information of substantial importance to the project has become available since completion of the previous EIR. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which OCClD'S in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Answer: Explanation: MAYBE The proposed project may adversely affect new significant open space, biotic or other significant long-term environmental values or opportunities not addressed in the previous EIR. c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant) Answer: Explanation: MAYBE Some new impact potentials identified in this Initial Study as potentially significant and/or requiring reevaluation or updating of the previous EIR to reflect changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken may be cumulatively considerable (e.g., traffic operation, air quality, etc.). d Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on hmnan beings, either directly or indirectly? Answer: Explanation: , ,WPS,\548Msc1CHKLST.548 MAYBE Project effects identified in this Initial Study which may have possible new substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly, not fully considered In the previous EIR include slope stabiUty (e.g., landslide and soil creep, erosion, etc.), air quality, potential drainage capacity problems, plant and animal life, noise, land use, population and housing, transportation and circulation, public services, utilities, recreation, and cultural resources. . .,.~,.., <:1" :;'~III " I fl I , , J J J I J J J J , ~ . . . Wagstaff and Associates City of Sou1h San Francisco August 3. 1995 Terrabay Specific Plan and t Initial Study .opment Agreement Extension hge 21 IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: . II II II . . . " " . II . . ~ I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DEC1ARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project MAY have a significant effect OIl the environment, there will not be a sipificant effect in this case because the mitigation measures descnDed OIl an attached sheet have been incorporated into the project. A NEGATIVE DEC1ARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that ~ proposed project may have new potential significant adverse effects on the environment, and a SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP Acr REPORT is required. 4~ Signature tJ x . ,i!f WPS1~54I ,