Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark Station Project Initial Study/MND 10-2005Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Station Project Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Applicant: Summerhill Homes ' Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner October 2005 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Applicant/Contact Person ................................................................................................ 2 Project Location and Context ........................................................................................... 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 13 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 14 Attachment to Initial Study .............................................................................................. 26 1. Aesthetics ................................................................................................. 26 2. Agricultural Resources ............................................................................. 30 3. Air Quality ............................................................................................... 30 4. Biological Resources ................................................................................ 35 5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 36 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................... 37 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................ 38 8. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 40 9. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................ 42 10. Mineral Resources .................................................................................... 44 11. Noise ........................................................................................................ 45 12. Population and Housing ........................................................................... 47 13. Public Services ......................................................................................... 48 14. Recreation ................................................................................................ 50 15. Transportation and Traffic ....................................................................... 51 16. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................... 56 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................ 58 Initial Study Preparers ...................................................................................................... 59 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ........................................................................... 59 References ........................................................................................................................ 59 City of South San Francisco Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Applicant/Contact Person Summerhill Homes 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Attn: Elaine Breeze, Senior Development Manager Project Location and Context The project is located in the northerly portion of South San Francisco, on the northeast side of El Camino Real (State Route 82) just south of the BART access road. Assessors Parcel Numbers for the site include 010-292-260 & -290. The site address is 1410 El Camino Real. The project site encompasses 2.04 acres (gross) of land which is generally flat. Existing uses on the site include two residential structures and a number of mature trees. An off-site sign (billboard) also exists on the site. The site includes a 1.25-acre site proposed for housing and a 0.79-acre parcel immediately to the northwest owned by BART. Land uses near the project area include amulti-story BART parking garage directly to the northwest as well as ground-mounted electrical transformer owned and operated by PG&E. Colma Creek, a regionally significant water body and flood control facility, flows along the northeast side of the site. Amulti-story condominium housing project has been constructed southwest of the site and single family dwellings have been constructed southwest of the site across El Camino Real. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of South San Francisco, Exhibit 2a shows the location of the project in context with the City of South San Francisco and Exhibit 2b shows the project location in relation to nearby major streets and highways and other features. Project Description The applicant is proposing the development of a 99-unit condominium-type high-density residential project on the site, to be known as the Park Station project. The project would also include on-site parking and open space amenities, described below. This would require City of South San Francisco Page 2 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 demolition and removal of all existing improvements and trees. Existing residents would need to be removed and relocated. Exhibits 3a through 3e shows the proposed development plan for building level and Exhibits 4a and 4b shows proposed exterior building elevations. Project elements are described below: Residential: Ninety-nine (99) attached dwellings would be built, consisting of one- bedroom and two-bedroom units. Two separate buildings would be built, one adjacent to El Camino Real with the second building extending in an east-west direction to the north. The buildings would have a height of 48 feet to the mid-point of the roof along the El Camino Real frontage and 57 feet to the mid-point of the roof along the Colma Creek frontage Dwellings would be in condominium-type ownership, with each of the dwellings being offered on a "for sale" basis. The City of South San Francisco is considering an amendment to the Zoning Code that would allow buildings of this height in this particular zoning district. Preliminarily, the dwelling unit mix would include 48 1-bedroom units (723 sq. ft. each); and 51 two-bedroom units (1,070 sq. ft each). Two interior elevators would serve upper floors. No less than 20% of the units designated affordable for low azid moderate-income households, as required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The units occupied by low and moderate-income households would be essentially the same as units occupied by market households and dispersed throughout the building. The proposed project would be professionally managed by an on-site staff. Security measures would be included as part of site construction. Recreational amenities: The Park Station project would include a picnic area, play area and bocce ball court adjacent to Colma Creek that would be used to link the Park Station project to the BART station and nearby Linear Park and Bike path. An interior courtyard/garden area would be provided between the two buildings. Individual apartment units would also have decks and upper dwellings would have balconies. In addition, a common room would be provided on the ground floor for use by residents. Parking and circulation: The project includes 121 on-site parking spaces in a garage structure underneath the two buildings. Parking would include a mix of standard-space stalls, tandem stalls (one space behind another space) and handicap access spaces. Garage parking access would be provided via a single access drive from El Camino Real leading into and out of the garage. Forty (40 bicycle parking spaces would also be provided on the project site. • Relocation Agreement: Urban Housing Group will enter into an agreement with the tenants on-site that provides for a relocation payment for each family. Landscape/Maintenance Agreement.• The covenants, conditions & restrictions will provide that the project's Homeowners' Association will be responsible for the landscaping maintenance of the land surrounding BART's drainage swale. City of South San Francisco Page 3 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 • Other features: Solid waste and mechanical spaces are proposed to be located on the east side of the building so as to minimize visibility from project frontages. The proposed project is required to comply with the City of South San Francisco Transit Village Plan and associated Zoning District Development Standards for setbacks, building height, lot coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR), density and project design. Adopted in 2001, the BART Transit Village Plan and Zoning District is designed to promote a balance of development near the South San Francisco BART station. The project developer will provide specific information identifying the proposed coverage of the building and open space areas, more specific sizes of the dwelling units, height and setbacks. The attachment lists the standards that will be used to determine the project's consistency with the Municipal Code. Park Station Site (1410 El Camino) BART segment Site Size (2.042 acres total) 1.25 acres 0.79 acre General Plan Designation Mixed High-Density Residential/Commercial Public Zonin Desi nation TV-RH PC-L A roved Densi U to 50 units/acre U to 30 units/acre Since the proposed dwellings would be offered for sale, aone-lot condominium Vesting Tentative Tract Map is proposed for approval by the City of South San Francisco. Phasing of improvements The proposed development will be constructed in a single phase. Land use entitlements The applicant is requesting City of South San Francisco approval of the following discretionary land use entitlements and other permits: • General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the parcel owned by BART/SamTrans from public to mixed commercial and residential uses; • Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Map to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BART/SamTrans from PCL to Transit Village Zone; • Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment to move an existing property line; • Approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement; and • Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for Condominium Purposes to merge two lots into a single parcel. Previous environmental documentation The environmental impacts of the proposed development have been analyzed in two prior environmental documents prepared by the City under CEQA. In October 1999, the City of South San Francisco certified an Environmental Impact Report for its 1999 General Plan which analyzed the 1410 El Camino Real parcel for mixed use commercial and high density residential uses and the BART parcel for public use. In 2001, the City adopted a Negative Declaration City of South San Francisco Page 4 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 which analyzed the impacts of South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan ("Transit Village Plan") which implemented the General Plan policies and development standards for a mixed of use of sufficient density on the site to create a vibrant pedestrian-oriented center. The Transit Village Plan included zoning standards, design guidelines and implementation measures for the Project site. The Transit Village Plan permits a density of 50 units per acre (with an additional density bonus for affordable units) and up to 30,000 square feet of commercial at a FAR of 2.0. The Negative Declaration for the Transit Village Plan concluded that development under the Plan would result in no significant environmental impacts. The proposed project is consistent with the Transit Village Plan as analyzed under the Negative Declaration. The environmental impacts of development of project site and surrounding area also have been analyzed in several recent EIRs: the BART Station Plan EIR; the Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard Extension Plan EIR; the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIR and the Costco Project EIR. An Initial Study/MitigatedNegatfve Declaration for an earlier version of this project was prepared and circulated for public review in September and October 2004. However, prior to City action on the underlying project, modifications were made to the project and the City elected to revise and recirculate the environmental document. In accordance with CEQA standards for streamlining and tiering environmental review, these prior environmental documents may be used and relied on in evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Zoning Code Amendment The City of South San Francisco is also proposing an amendment to the Zoning Code to increase the maximum height limit for this zoning district. City of South San Francisco Page 5 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 0 R u, 0 E 0 0 U T 0 m m m .~ u O 0 d .SAN 7'A B LO q Martinez nAr San so beo Concord Rafael Richmond sao Mill 101 Valley ~ Walnut nn za Creek \ ~ Berkeley 1 0 Oakland San Francisco ~9~a~e,,, SAN U San 101 ,~ Leandro ~ FRANCISCO eao Daly ~ City South San a A r ~ Francisco Hayward ti , ~ sz zeo N , San Mateo Fremont n _. 0 Redwood ~ / City ~(\ Half ~' Moon ~ BaY Palo CO Alto Livermore I Pleasanton San Jose CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARK STATION LOFTS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Sunnyvale Santa Clara Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION N 0 2 4 6 8 f0 miles Gate den G °~ ~~ o~ v v •,~ `~ .~ U San _. . _. `. GOLDEN GATE PARK Francisco Area shown in Exhibit 2b Daly City 0 e2 Colma Brisbane San Francisco r So. San Francisco p a 35 1J Pacifica zeo az -~-- ~ --- San SAN FRANCISCO Bruno ,~~ INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Millbrae ~~ a r P 4 o` 0 U T 0 0 0 .? v m San o Foster Mateo City Montara CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARK STATION LOFTS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 2a SITE CONTEXT LOCATER MAP N 0 1 2 3 4 5 miles (City of Colma) 82 CEMEfERI' '~ ~~~ ~`~~~ Aso ~ ~~ '\ ,9 ~~ ~, ,\ o~ a \~ IAEASURE~ Flicks Blvd rR~Ani'LER \ couRr '~ ,~, BART SITE /~ 0 N C U d m .? O n- I ~o~. `\ A \ ~ ~ l~ I Bruno) ~~ 2B0 `~ d .\ .~ `\ /, ~, h;~isi` ae%q ' l "~ j ~, i" ~~ i" * KAISER MEDICAL \ CEMER Exhibit 2b SITE CONTEXT N CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PARK STATION LOFTS o o.i o.z o.s o.a 0.5 o.s o.~ o.s o.s i.o mile MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION D (~ x -~ N ~ Crn D D -~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ A 3 A ~ D ~ ~ O r r ~ D ~' Gl U' D r y rn 0~ ~ N r p v! N CP N x 9 N ~ O! x x ~! ~ 0+ P x ~ ii ~ ~. ~ irn ~rn "S ~ a ~. (~ ~rt rw c~ ~ m L ~ ~ rn s D '~` ~ D r ~ D ~ N ~ ~ ~ D r ~' i a D rn ~ D ~ N z ~ 3 y D ~ N D ~ A a to ~ D N p n ~ 3 3 D < iii ~ __ - - - ~ .. ' .. J ~ ~I /~.' f I ~ r ~ ~. ~ t - _ ~ 4 ~ - ~~~ ~ ~~ : ., - ~ _ ___ -- -p p ~~) f ~ ~ ~_ _ _ -- - - .. ~~ i ~`~ ~~l --- - - i , <n -- . _~ --- __ -D ~'' + °' 1 ~~ ~ rn ~.~ ~) °~ ~ ~~) 5'-10" 7 ~ _-. __ O - O _ _p - • ~ rn _ ~ . '; ; . ~ ~ ~ f;l ~ i O ~ ~'~ a ~~ z _.__ _____ J ~ 1 ') Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ _. ~J ~ \; , f m, ~A ;a __ 4i/ :~ - '~y ,- r co y „4~ 141. ~ I ~ I D ~/~~°/~ I %/ ~-'j .~ /~ /~1 V~~ /a ~\ ~`. \ `~ G ~y~ ,,.. N N W Q' ~ I II ~ ~ II r ti @ ~\ '~~ ~. ^ ~ ~ r sue` ~/ ' ~~ ~' r ~ tp ~~„~i. h ,~~s~J ~~ L 71 v p ~ n A a p a o Nun g iu' D n 5 - N m =y u ZO1m ~ Z O w; e x°~ D n N v ~ tnp n _~ O o OC Z _ ~ ~rAr T by m A ~G1 ~ C N r Js~ZV 2 ~n ~ s ~ ~ b .. ~ f N DZ~ ~ T LY m N NO~ 9 m w~7oCm °D Dam= y u r ~ NDy ~ m~ m /AT f<fl ' VI ~~/~ V a ~ uND ~ ~ 5 A pm0 < v A z ~Dy ~ ~~ ° „1 r0 n ~ ~ ~'- ~ ~ O e m ~ A° g°z ~AZ n ~ '_' r d O i y c n w m p 2 ' b r ° ~ c iv - 9 ~ 0 y N '_ Z o f'! A a m rn D L rn z X1 rn a z n rn A _A 4 ~l rn O X Q. ~ ~• C W a -1 1 y Q Q ~ C Z C Z C Z C Z D D D ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r n ~ y D z ~`' N A A pY ? _ i N N - N A N ~ A N ~' 'i ~ O N A A rn A rn rn ;~ rn N N - N ~ ~ ~ j' ~ llt A ~ ~ z x o m A -~ s o vi o ~ a o > m g D U i 2 D N Ez n ~ N y i m m T O ° = N n O N 3 D + D p< A a ~ ~ = e v ti d ~ m N _~ OC O ~ o m y ~ ~ O ~omrN m ~ O w ~ ~.=.{r D p u0=~ n p ~ p Y S O ~~ O ~ ~^ o' .. o~ N n D F NHD m A O ~ 0 0 D NnmO v m .'0 7c m n O A y DOD ~" y ~. ~~OO m~ NT ~ m ~ N ~ ~ A ~ ~~°O g~ Day ~ m NDZ r ~'~ T N ..~ 9 '" ('1 • s y O m m ti r ~ ~ o WAN r ~ ~ O p N .tl ' 9 Z C d C _ ~ n rn D L rn z rn ~_ rn z C~ rn cn m c~ x ~~ o~ ~_ Q. -* I-' ~'' ~~ _ o ~ o n o ' ~z~a 5 Nz°W'~ _ ~°nY'< z Nd~ _~ ~ I ~ ti p s m ~oo~z m ° O~ N ms~~ S Ned OC m ~i n .. y jm~~ cZi A~~~ s wo=k m ~°o ~~ o I -z N o,~s~ m ~c~~oz °m m~pA ~ ~6sd m~ ~ r ~ ~ °z ~ N`~na~c5 ~ N~~v n~~~ VC~m ~~ p _. r-- ~ O A ?NN D N.~G ~ ND2 A = ~ ~ ~ m p `O a~0 ~~ n r9rprr pni ~ G _ ~ T m -i D r _- O• ~ -, tj~ ~ o w ~ An b r ~ I ~ z bl N S ~ _ ~ y d O A N p A ~ ~ Z _ A rn D L rn z rn ~_ rn z n rn N -~ m ~x ~' 3 a~ r~ c~ w <Q a~ 0 o n ~ ~ a o y s ~yNx 2 D ~ O~A 5 m ~D~~ ~n2 m -~" Op S z N -Ou3 ~D"'< V sc v P D A = v .' N -gym x v, OC `e p o m ~ - y m n m N 2 ~ C ~ W -/ g V G ~ v i o' r O m ~ p~ '''fn3o ~ D ~ x m "D A ~ m 3 m m ~ l/1 ~' ~ ~ i ~p .~~ D~~ _ m ~~o N~> m A ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ rt ~ ~n o o i gon jmm ~ ~r ~, ~ O• r N = ik _ O A N .~ C ~ m x .Q 2 n O y rn D L fTl Z /Z1 fTl lP a rn z n rn mm ox ~~ ~s r ~,, m~ as L _I _ ~ ~ ~ ° _ ° O # y x fz up j m ~ ry^ ~ m ~ ~ - ~r°w~+ OC b~~ o to D - ~ y ms w o~~ s ~ = d p~_ V° QC ~~ m v ~ ~ ~ ~~ ^'sz ~ N ~ ~ j V N A ~-~5 a ~AV 1 n x p Sf~ o ~o $ ~ ~ ? r-r i ~7 `~ ° ° A ~ oHy g°2 Dy ~ ~.~z m C1 N9D r = ~ ~ ~ ~ r7 O. Z o -1 A ~ ~ N S T n iTi D m r m D -~ O z m n O Z D D m D -~ m r m D ~_ O z m n O z D D zoom o c. ~ ~Qa Q°~ ~ mma~ as ~ ~< rn~ ~o <~ ~ N r+ O N N Z ~ U~ 'D O = O O 31 D m JJ ti D O -i y = m .. a O y D _ N N ~ b Z O 2 m r m D -~ O Z oD_ u'i z ~D ~~"2 ~ ~ pN~ A n~id ~ 2V) ~ ~~ m ° T O~ m m s z o S py y ~ C m ~mCN ~ ~C D LOZ~ m V o G ~~ ~O "{ N D Y o m N~ 3~ > m~ D~ ~ ~ g D ~ m O ~ bND A O m 77 T n ~ ~ ~ L = O~ ~ Q P ~ N 9 Q rr moray D.~y m N ~~ A n ~~~ ~mm ~ ~ ~ ` 0 o wyz ° ~ N S ik _ O G ~ z 0 c m r m O z m m r m D ~_ O z cn oo m ocx c-~' ~'~cr si~cQ '~ ~m~ N < ~ ~ rr mo ~~ < w 0 Z o N ~ o ~ o n ~ n D ~ O ~ m -+ = m m a O _ ~ n rn N N o e N ~s~~ ~ z ;a°~i `. ~ ;°DN~ ~ ~ ev ~ 2fn C ~ ~ '~ ~ f e m ~ N m ~ mOp y~~ ~ D >A~yV x m~> O`~ m w "gyd V~ o O ~~ m o ~ °' f~D f Nuy D m .U ~ ~ n O NOmO ym D _ °°C1Op '! m D ~ ~Dy. uD m~ ~m < ~ I'Y ~ ~ _ g oo ~ ~Dpyp p ~ Ny~ = A ~ m 2 +I iIT -1 ~ r ~ Q O " ~ N x ~ n u ~ °o r ° _ d 1. Project description: Construction of up 99 one and two bedroom condominium dwellings units on a 2-acre site consisting of two pazcels, in two story buildings .A total of 99 on-site parking spaces aze proposed in anunder-building garage along with on-site recreational facilities. The project also includes a zoning code amendment for the zoning district to modify certain development standards. 2. Lead agency: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue/P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco CA 94083 3. Contact person: Mike Lappen, Senior Planner (650)877-8535 4. Project location: Northeast side of El Camino Real (State Route 82) just south of the BART access road. Assessors Parcel Numbers: 010-292-260 & -290. 5. Project sponsor: Elaine Breeze Summerhill Homes 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 6. General Plan designation: Mixed Use-High Density Residential and Community Commercial and Public (Transportation Center) 7. Zoning: Transit Village-Residential High Density and Planned Commercial 8. Public agency required approvals: • Approval of Negative Declazation (City of South San Francisco) • Affordable Housing Agreement (City of South San Francisco) • Lot Line Adjustment (City of South San Francisco) • Vesting Tentative Tract Map (City of South San Francisco) • General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Use Permit, and Design Review (City of South San Francisco) • Grading and Building Permits (City of South San Francisco) • Utility connections (City of South San Francisco and various utility providers) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) • Encroachment Permit (Caltrans) City of South San Francisco Page 12 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aesthetics - Agricultural x Air Quality Resources - Biological Resources x Cultural Resources x Geology/Soils x Hazards and x Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Planning Hazardous Materials Quality - Mineral Resources x Noise - Population/ Housin - Public Services - Recreation x Transportation/ Circulation -ds Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings S stems of Si nificance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of South San Francisco adequately addresses potential impacts. X 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 the mitigation measures described on an . attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect 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 earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Signature: ~~L,G t~~~yMt~ ~ S~ol~ Date: lo~~~o~~ Printed Name: ~ Pu'1 For: `~J S~ City of South San Francisco Page 13 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well asproject-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. . 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" implies the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of South San Francisco Page 14 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 2, 6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 6) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 2,6) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 6) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to anon-agricultural use? (Source: 1, 2) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1, 2) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use? (Source: 1, 2) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 7) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2,7) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Page 15 October2005 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? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source:2) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 6) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) c) Have a substantial adverse impact 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? (Source: 2) 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? (Source: 2) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 16 October2005 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 3) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 2) 6. 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 Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2) iv) Landslides? (6) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (2) 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- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 17 October2005 e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 2) 7. 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 (Source: 2, 4) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? (Source: 4) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 6) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 4, 7) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 18 October2005 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? (Source: 2) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2) 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 existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 2, 7) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 2, 6) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of a course or 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? (Source: 2, 6) 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? (Source: 5, 6) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 5, 6) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 6) City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti anon Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 19 October2005 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (2) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (2) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 6) 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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 2, 6) 10. 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? (Source: 1, 2) 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? (Source:l, 2) 11. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2, 6) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 2, 6) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Page 20 October2005 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source:2) 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 n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) 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? (Source: 2) 12. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (2) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 6) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 1, 2, 7) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X Page 21 October2005 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2) 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? (Source: 2) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (5) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (5) 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? (6) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (6) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (7) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (5) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (1, 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Page 22 October2005 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2) 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? (2, 7) 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? (7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2) 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 providers existing commitments? (7) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (2) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Page 23 October2005 b) Does the project 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) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. South San Francisco General Plan 2. South San Francisco General Plan EIR 3. Historic Assessment of Structures, Archeological Resource Management 4. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Levine Fricke Associates 5. Traffic impact analysis of project, DKS Associates 6. Site Visit 7. Other Source City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Park Station Project Page 24 October2005 XVII. Earlier Analyses Eazlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declazation. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify eazlier analyses and state where they aze available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the General Plan and General Plan EIR (1999) (SCH#97122030). The following environmental documents have been used in the prepazation of this Initial Study: • Fairfield Mixed-Use Development Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration • South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan Initial Study/Negative Declazation (2001) • BART Station EIR • Hickey Boulevazd (McLellan Boulevazd) Extension EIR. • El Camino Redevelopment Corridor EIR • Costco EIR All documents are available for review at the South San Francisco Planning Department, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, during normal business hours. City of South San Francisco Page 25 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project site is located along the El Camino Real corridor, characterized by major commercial establishments and residential development along the north side of this regional roadway, including a Costco Whole facility, a BART multi-story pazking gazage, a Kaiser Hospital facility, amulti-story condominium development and low density residential development along the south side of El Camino Real. In 2003, the City of South San Francisco approved the three- story Fairfield Housing mixed use project on the north and south side of El Camino Real and McLellan Boulevard just west of the Park Station site. Single-family houses on the south side of El Camino Real have been constructed on hillside areas that overlook the project site and provide views to San Bruno Mountain to the north. Views of San Bruno Mountain are also available from the project site to the north and east, however, the site is not open to the public. Existing sources of light on the project site include residential porch and yard lighting associated with existing residential uses. The BART parking gazage to the west and the BART surface parking lot to the northwest provide significant levels of lighting immediately adjacent to the site. Light also spills over onto the project site from the multi-story condominium project to the east. Regulatory Framework In 2001, the City of South San Francisco adopted the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan to guide the development within an approximate 1/2-mile of the BART station. Transit Village Character Design Guidelines and Architectural Prototype Design Guidelines contained in the document call for development on the project site with a strong urban feel and with three stories of development over podium parking. Specific site planning and building design criteria aze contained in the document. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. Exhibits 6a and 6b have been prepazed to depict the development of the proposed Park Station residential project. Exhibit 6a shows existing site conditions looking north into the site from the south. The exhibit shows that existing structures and trees would be replaced by multi-story housing. Building elevations and materials aze based as close as possible to actual construction plans. Portions ofmid-distant hillsides north of the site would be blocked by the proposed building, however, no views would be impacted directly to the north. Exhibit 6b shows the project site would be seen from a vehicle traveling eastbound on El Camino Real. Similar to Exhibit 6a, existing older buildings and vegetation on the site would be replaced by a new high-density residential complex. Although the change of City of South San Francisco Page 26 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 aesthetic conditions on the site can be a subjective judgment, the type and intensity of development represented by the proposed Park Station project would be consistent with the higher density development envisioned in the City's land use planning and regulatory documents that encourages high density multi-story projects near transit stations. Overall, the proposed project would have ales-than-significant impact with regard to potential impacts on scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? LS. The type and intensity of development represented by the proposed Park Station project would be consistent with the higher density development envisioned in the City's land use planning and regulatory documents that encourage high density, multi-story residential projects near transit stations. Specifically, the BART Transit Village Plan sets forth the El Camino Real Regional Identity in light of its being alarge-scale, non-pedestrian oriented regional roadway. This concept calls for a strong urban feel and presence against the busy street and a new design quality along the street for future development. As such, the parapet detailing and roof top forms are important to the overall appearance of the El Camino Real facades as they are viewed from the residential neighborhoods above. Therefore, the Park Station project has been designed to articulate and to reinforce the building massing and rhythms. The project is consistent with these Transit Village Plan design guidelines for the El Camino Real and while the proposed Park Station project would represent a change to the aesthetic conditions on the site, it would result in ales-than-significant impact with regard to scenic resources along El Camino Real. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Park Station project would convert the site from a lower density residential complex on the 1410 El Camino Real parcel and a 7,000 square feet berm on the BART parcel to a more modern, high-density residential development. Existing outside storage would be removed and the billboard removed. Since the proposed project is being developed in a manner consistent with the City of San Francisco's BART Transit Village Plan and implementing zoning district (see Section 9 of this Initial Study, Land Use), which promotes three-story, pedestrian activity and architectural interest along El Camino Real, as well as appropriate landscaping and open space plazas, there would be aless-than-significant impact with regard to degrading the visual character of the site. d) Create light or glare? LS. A number of light sources presently exist on and adjacent to the site. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would add new sources of light and glare for security purposes, as required by the South San Francisco Police Department, exterior lights on the building and other light sources. Since the project site is substantially surrounded by existing light sources, new lighting would be less-than- significant. City of South San Francisco Page 27 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 ~~~>. Existing View from Stairs West of EI Camino Real Visual Simulation of Proposed Project Exhibit 6a Looking North fNVIRONMfN1ALVISION Toward the Hills Exhibit 6b fNVIRONMfNiAIVISION Looking East Toward EI Camino Real Existing View from EI Camino Real Visual Simulation of Proposed Project 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting The project area has been developed for residential uses for a number of years. Although underlying soils may support agriculture, no crops have been cultivated in many years nor have any portions of the project azea been used for animal grazing. No Williamson Act conservation agreements have been signed for properties affected by this project, since the great majority of the land is owned by public agencies. No agricultural zoning had been adopted for any portion of the project azea by the City of South San Francisco. Project Impacts a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or agriculture land use or convert prime farmland to anon-agricultural use? NI. The project area lies in a highly urbanized area of South San Francisco and there would be no impact with regard to agricultural uses, zoning or Williamson Act Land Conservation agreements. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the average in fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there aze periods of several days when winds aze very light and local pollutants can build up. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards aze levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what aze called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant aze described in criteria documents. The federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to identify air quality standards. California has also adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for some pollutants. Table 1 summazizes current state and national standazds. The local air quality agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regazding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law. The BAAQMD has prepared air quality impact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act. City of South San Francisco Page 30 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table 2 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal standards at these two sites. Table 2 shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the project area with the exception of PMIO and ozone. Table 1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal State Time Primary Standard Standard Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm 8-Hour 0.08 m -- Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 1-Hour 35.0 m 20.0 m Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm -- 1-Hour -- 0.25 m Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm -- 24-Hour 0.14 ppm ~ 0.05 ppm 1-Hour -- 0.5 m PMIO Annual 50 ug/m3 30ug/m3 24-Hour 150 u m3 50 u /m3 PM2.5 Annual 15 ug/m3 -- 24-Hour 65 u /m3 -- Lead 30-Day Avg. -- 1.5 ug/m3 Month Avg. 1.5 u /m3 -- ppm =parts per million ug/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: BAAQMD City of South San Francisco Page 31 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Table 2. Air Quality Data Summary for San Francisco and Redwood City, 1999-2001 Monitoring Site Days Standard Exceeded Pollutant Standard 1999 2000 2001 Ozone Federal 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood Ci 0 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood Ci 0 0 1 Ozone Federal 8- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hours Redwood City 0 0 0 PMio Federa124- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood Ci 0 0 0 PMIO State 24-Hour San Francisco 6 2 7 Redwood Ci 3 1 4 Carbon State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0 Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood Ci 0 0 0 Nitrogen State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Dioxide Redwood Ci 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2002. Regulatory framework The South San Francisco General Plan contains the following guiding air quality policies regarding reduction of cumulative air quality impacts: Policy 7.3-G-1: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. Policy 7.3-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit and carpooling. Policy 7-3-G5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through, the arrangement of land uses, improved alternative modes and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total of vehicle miles traveled. The State of California also has adopted the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (Calif. Gov. Code 65460 et. seq). Legislative findings made as part of this Act notes that persons living within aone-quarter mile radius of transit stations use transit systems in far greater numbers than does the general public living elsewhere. City of South San Francisco Page 32 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Projcect Impacts a) Would the project conjlict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and PMIO (state ambient standard). While air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PMIO. The Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard is the current ozone air quality plan required under the federal Clean Air Act. The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan. These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. The project represents the proposed development of higher density residential dwellings near major transit facilities (bus and BART) to reduce dependence on automobile mode of transportation. The proposed type, location and density of development s also consistent with City of South San Francisco General Plan air quality guiding policies. Although air pollutants would increase through construction of the proposed Fairfield development project, this type of development is a land use strategy promoted by the City of South San Francisco, BAAQMD and other regional planning agencies to improve regional air quality, so no impact would result. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS/M. Construction The proposed project would require demolition of two existing structures. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Uncontrolled dust emissions during construction have the potential to exceed the ambient air quality standards locally. This impact is .potentially significant. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide thresholds of significance for air quality impacts. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMIO. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. Adherence to the following mitigation will achieve this objective. Mitigation Measure 1. The following measures are recommended for inclusion in construction specifications to control fugitive dust emissions. a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. b) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. c) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. City of South San Francisco Page 33 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 d) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e) Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Operation Development projects in the Bay Area are most likely to violate and air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through generation of vehicle trips. New vehicle trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets providing access to the site. The traffic analysis prepared for this project by DKS Associates estimates a total number of 557 vehicle trips resulting from buildout of the proposed Park Station project. In this instance, the size of the proposed development would not exceed regional thresholds as outlined on Table 6 of BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines as resulting in potentially significant NOX emissions. Table 6 of the CEQA Guidelines suggests that development projects containing 510 apartment dwellings would be the threshold for resulting in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. For the proposed project, dwelling units would be well below this threshold, so that total vehicle trips would be less than anticipated in Table 6 of the BAAQMD Guidelines. In addition, some vehicle trips normally associated with a residential project may be substituted with BART or bus trips. Operational impacts of the approving and constructing the proposed project are therefore less-than-significant. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. Based on Table 6 contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not be sufficiently large in terms of numbers of dwelling units to generate at least 80 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides, which is the BAAQMD threshold of significance. The intent of the proposed project is to provide ahigh-density project near the South San Francisco BART station to minimize use of automobile modes of travel. This type, intensity and location of land uses is consistent with the Transit Village Development Planning Act, the City of South San Francisco General Plan and development strategies promoted by other regional planning agencies. Therefore, this would be aless-than-signifrcant impact. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LS. The project would provide housing for residents, some of whom may be considered sensitive receptors (very young or old), however, none of the other uses on the site would generate significant quantities of pollutants, so this would be considered ales-than-significant impact. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number or people? LS During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the project boundaries. The potential for diesel odors impacts is less-than-significant. City of South San Francisco Page 34 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The project site is located within an upland, urbanized area of South San Francisco. The site contains a number of residential dwellings, ancillary structures and mature trees. The site is substantially surrounded by urban uses, including a BART parking garage to the west and three story condominium dwellings to the west. Although Colma Creek flows to the north of this site, the Creek is fenced to preclude access on the site by animal species. No wetlands have been observed on the site. Figure 4.13-4 (Sensitive Biological Resources) contained in the General Plan Draft EIR do not identify the presence of any significant biological or ecological resources on the site. Figure 4.13-5 (Special Environmental Studies Required for Future Development Proposals) does not identify the project site as subject to future site-specific biological analyses. Pro, j ect Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? NI. The project site is located in an urbanized azea and has been disturbed by previous action. No candidate, sensitive or special-status plant or animal species exist on the site. No impacts would therefore result. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? NI. No impacts would result to wetlands, since the site is an upland site lot and no wetlands exist on the site. d) Interfere with movement of native frsh or wildlife species? NI. Existing fencing along portions of the site currently preclude migration by wildlife species through the site. No impacts would therefore result. Following project construction, buildings and other site improvements would serve as a barrier to movement of wildlife species. e, fJ Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? LS/M. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. No impacts would result with regard to Habitat Conservation Plans. However, several mature trees exist on the site that are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed project. Since the City of South San Francisco protects any tree with a circumference of 48 inches measures 54 inches above grade, this would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following measure would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 2. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the project developer shall submit a plan for approval by the Parks and Recreation Director that will reduce loss of protected trees on the site to ales-than-significant level. The Plan shall indicate the number, species, size of trees to be replanted with locations for replanting, either on or off the project site if suitable space does not exist on the project site. A replanting ratio of 2 replacement trees for each protected tree to be lost is recommended. City of South San Francisco Page 35 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Settinc The Cultural resources section of the South San Francisco General Plan DEIR does not indicate the presence of any historic, archeological or Native American resources on or adjacent to the project site. As part of the environmental review process, the applicant commissioned an analysis of the existing residential dwellings on the site. The report was prepared by Archeological Resources Management dated December 16, 2003 and copies of this report are available for review in the South San Francisco Planning Division. The report concludes that although the structures on the site are older (one dating to approximately 1915), neither aze listed as historic structures on the California Register of Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. Based on the analysis contained in the report, neither structure appears eligible for listing on these two registers. The dwelling closest to El Camino Real, constructed in approximately 1915, additions and modifications to the dwelling since construction have altered the structure beyond recognition and all architectural integrity has been lost. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. Based on the historic report prepazed by Architectural Resources Management, neither of the two dwellings on the site are considered historic, so no impacts are anticipated with regazd to significant historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological resource? LS/M. The presence of sensitive archeological resources on the site appear to minimal, based on the cultural resources information contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. However, since excavation is proposed building foundations and utilities, a possibility exists of encountering cultural resources. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to ensure that any impacts to an archeological resources would be less- than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3. If historic, azcheological or Native American materials or artifacts are identified during project construction, work on the project shall cease until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 is prepazed by a qualified archeologist and/or paleontologist and approved by the South San Francisco Chief Planner. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains aze encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geological feature? LS/M. Any potential impacts to paleontological impacts will be addressed as part of Mitigation Measure 3. City of South San Francisco Page 36 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS/M. No formal cemeteries have been identified on the site in either the azcheological or resources survey. If human remains are identified outside of a cemetery, adherence to Mitigation Measure 3 would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Settine Geology and soils The site is located on the northeast portion of the San Francisco Peninsula, which lies within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. The Coast Range consists of northwest trending mountains and valleys. The region has undergone a complex geologic history of sedimentation; volcanism, folding, uplift and erosion. This geologic province is thought to have been formed by northwest- southeast tectonic forces caused by the intersection of the North American Plate moving northwesterly and the Pacific Crustal Plate moving southeasterly. The contact between these plates is the San Andreas fault zone. The soil type underlying the project site is identified as alluvium on Figure 4.11-3 contained in the General Plan EIR. Alluvium consists of deposited material caused by hydrological action of a water course, Colma Creek in this instance. Seismic hazards In terms of seismic hazazds, the City of South San Francisco, and the Bay area as a whole, is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Several major faults and fault zones traverse the region, including the San Andreas, the San Gregorio fault, the Hayward fault, the Calaveras fault, the Coyote Point fault and the Hunters Point fault. None of these exist on the project site and the site is not located in an Earthquake safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). The 1990 Working Group on the California earthquake Probabilities estimated a 67% probability of a major earthquake (7.0+ magnitude) by the year 2020. There are no known active faults within the project area. Project Impacts ' a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? LS. Proposed structures on the site would be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking during seismic events on nearby fault zones. In the absence of an Earthquake Safety Zone on the site, the risk of ground rupture is considered low. With adherence to construction techniques identified in the California Building Code and other applicable State of California standazds, less-than-significant seismic impacts to humans or structures are anticipated. No impacts related to landslide hazard are anticipated, since the project site contains minimal topographic relief. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS/M. The proposed project would include excavation for construction of site improvements. Although City of South San Francisco Page 37 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 limited, a possibility exists that stockpiling of trench spoils could erode into neazby streets, the Colma Creek channel north of the site and ultimately into San Francisco Bay. This would be a significant impact. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce erosion impacts to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4. Contract specifications for this project shall require the prepazation and implementation of an erosion control plan for all portions of the project that would involve trenching, excavation or stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepazed by a registered civil engineer and be consistent with City of South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines and standards. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Figure 10-2 of the General Plan Existing Conditions Report (Geotechnical Hazards) identifies the site as being subject to moderate liquefaction potential based on underlying soil type, so less-than-significant impacts are anticipated with regazd to liquefaction and lateral spreading. Figure 4.11-6 contained in the General Plan DEIR (Intensity of Groundshaking from a 7.1 San Andreas Earthquake) does not identify the project site or any surrounding property as being sensitive to seismic action. Since the project site is generally flat, no impacts aze anticipated with regard to landslides. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. The proposed project would connect to the City's municipal sewer system, so there would be no impacts with regazd to septic systems. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project site was performed in November 2003 by the firm of Levine Fricke. This report is available for review at the City of South San Francisco Planning Division. The assessment consisted of a site review to determine the potential presence of any visible sources of contamination, a review of previous site uses, and a review of local regulatory agencies files to determine past cases that may have been opened on the site. The project site is not listed on the State of California Department of Toxics and Substances Control's Cortese List as a contaminated site as of August 18, 2004. Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. The proposed project would include construction ofmulti-family dwellings, parking and related facilities. Although some quantity of potentially hazazdous materials would be used during project construction and, following construction, for on-going maintenance of the facility, However, there would be City of South San Francisco Page 38 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 normal and customary types and quantities of such material, so there would be no impact with regard to this topic. 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? LS/M. Based on the findings of the Levine Fricke report, no recognized environmental conditions were found or observed on the site. However, demolition of older existing buildings on the site could result in release of asbestos and lead based paints into the atmosphere as a result of the demolition process. Existing buildings are sufficiently old such that these potentially hazardous materials were likely used in their construction, and releases would be potentially significant. Adherence to the following measure would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 5. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City of South San Francisco, the project developer shall comply with the following: a) An asbestos survey of existing structures shall be performed consistent with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution guidelines. If warranted, a remediation plan to remove asbestos shall be prepared and implemented by a qualified contractor. Necessary permits shall be obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and other affected agencies b) A lead based paint survey shall be conducted by a qualified contractor. If lead-based paint is encountered, remediation requirements as outlined in Cal OSHA and other applicable regulatory agencies shall be followed. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI. Although two schools exists within approximately one-quarter mile from the project site (El Camino High school to the northwest and Alta Loma Middle School to the southwest), the proposed project involves development of a higher density condominium complex that would not handle significant quantities of hazardous material or waste. No impacts would therefore result. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. The project site is not includes on the most recent "Cortese List" of identified hazardous waste and substances sites as of July 11, 2005, as compiled and maintained by the Department of Toxics Substances Control. There is therefore no impact with regards to the project site being identified as a hazardous materials site. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS. The project site is located within an airport referral area as part of an Airport Land Use Plan, but is not located within an impacted noise overflight area. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? LS. The proposed project would not involve major change to existing roads or development patterns that would block emergency evacuation plans. Although the addition of more residents on the site would City of South San Francisco Page 39 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 increase the number of people that would need to the evacuated, proposed high density housing on this site was considered as part of the General Plan process. Therefore, less- than-significant impacts are anticipated with regard to interference with emergency evacuation plans. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The project area lies in a substantially urbanized area with minimal risk of wildland fires. No impacts are therefore anticipated. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting The main surface body of water within South San Francisco is Colma Creek, a perennial stream with a watershed of approximately 16 square miles. Colma Creek extends in a southeastern direction through the center of the community and passes to the north of the project site. The two primary tributaries of Colma Creek include Twelve Mile Creek and Spruce Creek. Both of these smaller creeks have been almost all channelized and/or undergrounded. San Francisco Bay, another major body of water, forms the easterly boundary of South San Francisco. Existing storm drain facilities have been constructed in streets abutting the project site to accommodate stormwater runoff. Surface water quality All flows into Colma Creek originate as stormwater, irrigation runoff or are from similar sources. As an urban stream, Colma Creek is expected to have high levels of heavy metals as well as other pollutants typical of urban bodies of water. South San Francisco has joined the other cities and San Mateo County to create the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. The purpose of this program is to administer a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit for stormwater quality management. Each participant has adopted a Stormwater Management Plan to ensure that Best Management Practices are enforced to protect surface water quality, during both construction and operational stages of a project. Flooding and tsunami hazards Periodic flooding occurs along most of the right-of--way of Colma Creek in South San Francisco, however, based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for this portion of South San Francisco, (Community Panel No. 0650620002B), the project site lies outside of the 100-year flood plain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The project site is not anticipated to be subject to tsunami hazards from San Francisco Bay, based on Figure 10-2 contained in the 1999 General Plan Existing Conditions Report (Geotechnical Hazards). City of South San Francisco Page 40 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS/M. Approval of the requested project would increase surface water flow that could affect surface water quality standards. The potential for violation of surface water standazds is considered potentially significant. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3 will ensure that erosion during grading and excavation activities would be controlled to ales-than-signifrcant level Less- than-significant impacts aze anticipated with regazd to exceeding water quality dischazge requirements since there would be small but minor contribution to the City's wastewater flow. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. No impacts aze anticipated with regazd to depletion of groundwater resources, since the project would not require use of groundwater resources. The City's primary source of water is imported water. Similazly, less-than-significant impacts aze anticipated with regard to overcovering groundwater rechazge azeas since minor and non-substantial new impervious surfaces would be created as part of the project within the lazger drainage basin. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS/M. Construction of additional impervious surfaces is anticipated with the proposed project, which would include adding new buildings, driveways, walkways and other impervious surfaces to an open azea that could potentially impact local drainage systems and facilities. The site would also be graded to allow for improved site drainage. Adherence to the following measures will ensure that this impact is reduced to aless-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project developer's civil engineer shall submit a drainage and hydrology report, identifying existing peak hour and total stormwater runoff from the site, direction of flow, anticipated peak hour and total stormwater runoff at full project buildout and the ability of downstream drainage facilities to accommodate stormwater increases. If necessary, the report shall identify specific measures to provide drainage improvements to meet. City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Flood Control District drainage criteria to ensure that all drainage impacts are less-than-significant and no flooding would occur off of the project site. The report shall be approved by the South San Francisco City Engineer. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS/M. See item "c" above, including Mitigation Measure 6. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS/M. See items "c" and "f." f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS/M. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 4 (soil erosion), there would be less-than-significant impacts related to degradation of water quality due to increases in soil erosion. However, there would be a potentially significant impact to surface water quality due deposits of oil, spillage of gas and deposits of other organic and inorganic material as a result of more human activity on the site. The following City of South San Francisco Page 41 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce the potential for surface water quality impacts to ales-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 7. The project developer's civil engineer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) adhering to City of South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards to assure adherence to surface water quality standards for both construction and long-term operational phases of the project. The SWPPP shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices, including, but not limited to provision of storm water filters, frequent sweeping of the site, labeling storm drain inlets and adding a permanent cover over solid waste dumpsters. g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. The project site is located outside of a 100-year flood plain so there would be no impact with regard to placing housing within a 100-year flood plain. . h, i) Place within a 100 year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. The site is located outside of a 100-year flood plain. No impacts are anticipated with regard to impedance of flood waters or flows. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The project site lies outside of anticipated tsunami impact areas, based on the South San Francisco General Plan. Also, the site is flat with minimal topographic relief, so the risk of impacts from mudflows or landslides is very unlikely. No impacts are therefore anticipated. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Existing land uses The project site contains two parcels of land. The larger, located at 1410 El Camino Real, contains two residential structures with five separate dwelling units and associated outbuildings. Portions of the site are also used for storage of vehicles and similar items. A billboard has also been constructed on the site. The smaller of the two properties is owned by BART and contains a ground mounted electrical transformer owned and operated by PG&E and landscaping. Land uses near the project area include amulti-story BART parking garage to the northwest as well as ground-mounted electrical transformer owned and operated by PG&E. Colma Creek, a regionally significant water body and flood control facility, flows along the northeast side of the site. Amulti-story condominium housing project has been constructed southwest of the site and single family dwellings have been constructed southwest of the site across El Camino Real. Regulatory framework General Plan. Land uses within South San Francisco are regulated by the South San Francisco General Plan, which was last updated in 1999. The General Plan includes the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, Economic Development Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, Health and Safety Element and Noise Element. City of South San Francisco Page 42 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 The General Plan Land Use Map designates the site for "Mixed Use-High Density Residential and Community Commercial" development on the 1410 El Camino real portion of the site. This designation allows for apartments, condominiums and similar high-density housing types as well as a range of commercial uses. Allowed residential densities in this General Plan classification is between 18.1 and 50 units per acre. The "Public" land use designation on the smaller PG&E property denotes the property is part of a Transportation Center. The following General Plan Guiding Policies aze applicable to this project: Land Use Element Guiding Policy 2-G-3-Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. Land Use Element Guiding Policy 2-G-C~Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill development and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. Land Use Element Guiding Policy 2-G-8-Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes The Subazeas Element of the General Plan contain a number of specific guiding and implementing policies for the El Camino Real azea, which includes the project site. Generally, the polices direct that El Camino Real be developed as a boulevard with a mix of higher intensity, pedestrian-oriented land uses and with convenient east-west connections with adjacent neighborhoods. Policy 3.4-1-8 requires that any new development or redevelopment within 1/2 mile of the BART station have a density of at least 30 units per net acre. General Plan land use designations in the vicinity of the project site include the BART station and parking structure north and west of the site as a Transportation Center, Pazk and Recreational Uses to the north (Colma Creek channel), Mixed Use-Community Commercial uses to the east and Low Density Residential to the south. . Zoning Ordinance. The City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance regulates land uses on private property in the community. Current zoning of the site is Transit Village Zoning- Residential (TV-R) on the 1410 El Camino site and Planned Commercial on the adjacent BART parcel, which permits high density residential. This zoning district was adopted by the City in 2001 to create, preserve and enhance opportunities for transit supportive development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station. Higher density residential land uses are encouraged to support neazby public transit opportunities. This zoning district has been applied to the project site and adjacent sites within one-half mile of the BART station. The Transit Village Residential, High Density sub-district is concentrated to the west of the BART right-of--way and adjacent to the El Camino Real. It is intended to provide sites for higher density, multi-family neighborhoods near the Station Area. To support these developments in creating an active, urban pedestrian environment at the sidewalk level, commercial uses are allowed fronting the principal streets in the TV-RH sub-district. Parking exemptions are provided to accommodate small commercial spaces. Buildings that front El Camino Real and City of South San Francisco Page 43 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 McLellan Drive are intended to have a strong, urban presence and help to define the edge of the pedestrian environment along the Transit Village's busiest streets. Internally and facing the lineaz park, site architecture may "soften," becoming more residential in nature. The proposed project also includes a modification of current development standazds in the zoning district, specifically to permit taller structures. Redevelopment Plan. The project site also lies within the City's El Camino Real Redevelopment Project Area, which has been adopted to spur revitalization and redevelopment of properties in this portion of the community. The goals and objectives of the EI Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Plan, amended in 2001, to 1) create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station and 2) to replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used; and 3) provide below market rate units affordable to persons earning less than 80% of median income for wage earners in San Mateo County. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. Approval and construction of the proposed project would involve a higher density residential development on a currently underdeveloped site within the El Camino Real corridor of the community. The project is an infill development project intended to complement the newly constructed BART station consistent with the Transit Village Zoning District, so no impacs would result. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The proposed project, which includes a General Plan Amendment and rezoning, would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential as well as the Transit Village Zoning District. No impacts would therefore result. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the City of South San Francisco. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the proposed project. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project area contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Existing Conditions Report prepared as part of the 1999 General Plan Update process. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist within the project area, so no impacts would occur. City of South San Francisco Page 44 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 11. Noise Environmental Settine The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. The Noise Element of the General Plan EIR identifies the following primary sources on noise in South San Francisco: aircraft noise from San Francisco International Airport, traffic noise from freeways and arterial roadways in the community, railroad noise and industrial noise. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 3. City of South San Francisco Noise Exposure Levels Land Use Noise Ex ooure Level Residential Less than 65: Satisfacto 66 to 70: Conditionall Acce table 70+: Unacce table Commercial Less than 70:Satisfacto 70 to 80: Conditionall Acce table 80+Ai ort-related develo ment onl Industrial U to 75: Satisfactory 75 to 85: Conditionall Acce table 85+ Ai ort related develo ment only O en U to 75: Satisfacto 75+ Avoid uses involving concentrations of eo le or animals Source: South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, 1999 Noise level references reflect Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) decibels Proiect Impacts a) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? LS/M. Figure 4.5-4 (Projected Road and Rail Noise) contained in the General Plan EIR indicates that portions of the project site adjacent to El Camino Real would be subject to roadway noise in excess of 65 db CNEL. Portions of the northerly area of the project site nearer the BART tracks could be subject to noise levels of 60 db CNEL. Since the noise level projections are not based on asite-specific study, future residents of the exterior units of the proposed residential development could be exposed to interior and exterior noise levels in excess of City noise standards (see Table 5). This would be a potentially significant impact. The following measure is therefore recommended to control noise levels to City standards, which would be less-than-significant. City of South San Francisco Page 45 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Mitigation Measure 8. Final building plans for all residential buildings shall include provisions for reducing interior noise levels to state and local noise exposure levels and ensuring that exterior spaced comply with City of South San Francisco noise exposure levels. Methods for complying with interior noise levels may include but are limited to sound-rated windows, noise insulation and similar features. Methods for meeting City exterior noise exposure levels may include construction of noise barriers, use of buildings to shield outdoor azeas and similaz features. Final building plans shall be stamped by a qualified acoustical consultant that the plans comply with City of South San Francisco and State of California exterior and interior noise standards. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI. Implementation of the proposed project would involve normal construction methods, which requiring grading and compaction of the soil, use of heavy construction equipment and similar operations. No unusual construction operations are anticipated that could result in significant groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels over and above standazd construction operations and procedures. No impacts are therefore anticipated.. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? LS. There would be minor increases in the amount of noise within and adjacent to the project azea, caused by an increase in vehicles associated with the proposed project, and similaz noises associated with the proposed development. The surrounding azea is currently impacted by louder existing noise generated from heavy traffic on adjacent El Camino Real and BART train operations to the north, so that on-site noises would be masked by surrounding louder noise and would therefore beless-than-significant as caused by the proposed project. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? LS/M. Construction of the proposed project could result in short-term noise and vibration due to site grading and installation of utility connections, trenching and grading for building foundations and construction of buildings. There would also be increased noise levels from trucks and other construction vehicles needed for the project. In the short-term, these activities could exceed City noise exposure standazds. And would be potentially significant especially for residential dwellings to the east Adherence to the following measure would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Management Plan to the South San Francisco Planning Department. At minimum, the Plan shall address hours of construction operation to be consistent with the City's noise ordinance, a requirement for providing mufflers on all gasoline or diesel-powered equipment, reliance on electrically powered tools and similar requirements. The Plan shall specify a noise coordinator with a 24-hour contact person to be posted prominently on the project site. The Plan shall be approved by the South San Francisco Chief Planner prior to issuance of a grading permit. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? NI. The project site lies outside of the significant noise levels as indicated on Figure 4.5-2 of the South San Francisco General Plan DEIR (Aircraft Noise City of South San Francisco Page 46 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 and Insulation Program Area). There would therefore be no impact regazding aircraft noise levels on the project site. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting Population South San Francisco is San Mateo County's fourth largest City. Population growth in the City has been cyclical, generally fueled first by heavy industrial uses in the early and mid-part of the last century. More recently, biotechnology and related high tech and office uses have spurred residential growth. The one major residential project that is in the process of completion is the Terrabay project on the south slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Other infill residential projects have been built along the El Camino corridor and other areas. Since the supply of large vacant parcels of land in the community is neazly exhausted, future residential growth is anticipated to be limited. Additional population growth must therefore come from redevelopment projects. The following table includes historical population projections for the Bay Area, San Mateo County and South San Francisco, based on the Association of Bay Area Government's Projections 2003 publication. The City's General Plan (1999) anticipates a maximum build-out population of 67,400 for the community. No time horizon for build-out is assumed in the General Plan. Table 4. Regional, County and City Population 2000 Population 2010 Population 2020 Population Region 6,783,760 7,419,100 8,094.000 San Mateo Co. 707,163 741,000 806,500 South San Francisco 60,732 62,500 68,700 Source: ABAG Projections 2005 Employment Employment trends in South San Francisco have been changing from a heavy industrial center, dominated by steel mills, meat packing, ship building and similar "blue collaz" industries to high tech and research jobs. Due to the proximity to regional transportation facilities and to San Francisco, continued employment growth is anticipated for the next 20+ years. City of South San Francisco Page 47 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 The following table summarizes projected employment growth in South San Francisco. Table 5. Regional, County and City Employment 2000 Jobs 2010 Jobs 2020 Jobs Region 3,753,460 3,836,540 4,463,630 San Mateo Co. 386,590 368,390 433,860 South San Francisco 41,190 45,120 51,210 Source: ABAG Projections 2005 The South San Francisco General Plan EIR anticipates a buildout employment figure of 71,400 for the General Plan, but no time horizon is attached to employment buildout. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. Approval of the proposed project would increase population growth in South San Francisco, since the Park Station includes development of 99 condominium-type dwellings. This would represent an estimated 210 residents, based on a per-unit occupancy factor of 2.21 based on the recently adopted City of South San Francisco Housing Element. This includes a deduction of the four dwellings that would be removed to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed development is being proposed consistent with adopted City policies to encourage high- density residential development and mixed land uses near the South San Francisco BART station. Therefore aless-than-significant impact is anticipated. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? LS. The project site contains four legal rental units within two structures. The applicant proposes to remove these units to accommodate the Park Station project. Loss of the rental units could displace up to 8 people and, since the site is within a City Redevelopment Project area, the developer is required to prepare and implement a relocation plan so that existing residents would be relocated into suitable replacement housing. Therefore, the applicant has entered into an agreement with the tenants to allow for tenant relocation. The content of the relocation plan is governed by state and federal law. This impact would therefore be less-than-significant 13. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: City of South San Francisco Page 48 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are handled by the City of South San Francisco Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, fire prevention, education and hazardous material control. The closest City fue station to the project site is the Arroyo Fire Station, located on El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive, staffed by five firefighters and paramedics per each shift. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the City of South San Francisco Police Department, which maintains a 24-hour security patrol throughout the community. The Department is headquartered at 33 Arroyo Drive. • Schools. The South San Francisco Unified School District provides public K-12 educational services to the community. A number of private schools are also available within the community and surrounding communities. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of South San Francisco. • Solid Waste: Solid waste service is offered by South San Francisco Scavenger Company. After collection, waste is brought to the Material Recovery Facility Transfer Station in the east of 101 area and ultimately disposed of at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill located near Half Moon Bay. The Ox Mountain facility has a permit to accept fill material unti12016. Upon expiration of that permit, the facility is proposed for expansion. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the proposed project would increase the number of calls for service by the South San Francisco Fire Department due to an increase in the population and type of building improvements on the site. Impacts to the Fire Department will be reduced to less-than-significant level by adherence to the California Building Code, Fire Code requirements and other standard building requirements imposed by the South San Francisco Fire Department through the normal development review process. These typically include but are not limited to installation of fire hydrants near the site, provision of adequate water pressure with a looped water system, ensuring adequate Fire Department access to buildings, provision of life safety provisions and adherence to similar requirements. b) Police protection? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the number of calls for to the South San Francisco Police Department. Adherence to City safety and security requirements, including but not limited to adequate locations and levels of lighting, installation of keys and security systems and similar items would ensure that impacts to the Police Department would be less-than-significant. c) Schools? LS. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 54 K-12 students at project buildout. This projection is based on estimated student generation rates published in the South San Francisco Existing Conditions Report (Table 8-6, Estimated South San Francisco Student Generation Rates) and could overstate the number of students residing in this high density project. Students living within the proposed project would attend Sunshine Gardens Elementary School, Alta Loma Middle School and El Camino High School. As of City of South San Francisco Page 49 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 the publication of this Initial Study, none of these schools exceed estimated maximum capacities. Payment of school impact fees by the project developer to the South San Francisco Unified School District would provide mitigation for education impacts of the project so that school impacts would be less-than-significant. School impact fees aze presently $2.05 per squaze foot of residential living space. d) Parks? LS. Refer to Section 14 of this Initial Study, below. e) Other governmental service, including maintenance ofpublic facilities? NI. There would be no impact to maintenance services provided by the City, since any off-site construction would be constructed to City standazd to minimize the need for maintenance. f) Solid waste generation? LS. Less-than-significant impacts regarding generation of solid waste is anticipated since construction of the proposed mixed-use project would generate a small amount of construction debris. Long-term operation of the facility would result in a less-than-significant impact regarding solid waste generation, since South City Scavenger Service provides regulaz pick up of recyclable materials and can accommodate anticipated minor increases in the amount of solid waste from the proposed project. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting South San Francisco maintains 319.7 acres of pazks and open space, equivalent to 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents. This includes 70 acres of developed parkland, 168.5 acres of open space and 81.2 acres of school lands. The City also provides a range of recreation programs available in 6 community recreation buildings, some of which provide specialized services. The City is currently planning a lineaz park immediately north of the project site along the southerly bank of Colma Creek. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. Construction of the proposed project would add new population to the City of South San Francisco. The added population would increase demand for local parks and recreation facilities. However, payment of required pazk in-lieu fees to the City of South San Francisco will fund new park land in the community. Therefore, park impacts would be less-than- signifrcant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? LS. The proposed project includes a play azea in the northerly portion of the project site adjacent to Colma Creek as well as a common courtyard and private outdoor azeas. In addition, the project developer will be required to pay park in-lieu fees to the City of South San Francisco to fund new park land in the community. Therefore, impacts to pazk and recreation facilities would be less-than-significant. City of South San Francisco Page 50 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 15. Transportation and Traffic (Note: The following traffic analysis has been prepared by DKS Associates Associates, Inc. in January, 2004 and updated by letter on September 2, 2004. The full text of the report and supplemental letter is available at the South San Francisco Planning Department during normal business hours.) Environmental Setting Existing roadways Interstate 280 (I-280) provides regional access to the project site, while a number of arterials and local roads provide local access. I-280 is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the project site, running through the City of South San Francisco. The freeway extends northward through Colma and Daly City to San Francisco. Southwazd, I-280 extends to San Jose. Access to and from the project site is provided via interchanges at Hickey Boulevazd and Westborough Boulevard. EI Camino Real (State Route 82) is a north-south arterial roadway that provides access between Daly City and San Jose. This roadway contains six lanes north of Mission Road and south of Hickey Boulevazd, and four lanes in between. Traffic flows primarily southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening on this roadway in the vicinity of the site. Mission Road is a minor arterial running generally pazallel to El Camino Real throughout its span. This two-lane road originates at El Camino Real in Colma and terminates at Chestnut Avenue in South San Francisco. Traffic volumes on this roadway aze highest during the AM peak period due to El Camino High School. Hickey Boulevard is an east-west arterial providing four-lane access between its intersection with El Camino Real in South San Francisco and the City of Pacifica. In the vicinity of the study, most traffic flows eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. McLellan Drive is a two-lane road from its beginning to El Camino Real. It was recently extended to Mission Road as afour-lane arterial. At Mission Road, it becomes Lawndale Boulevard. This road divides the proposed development into its north and south pazcels. BART Access Road #1 is a two-lane street providing access between El Camino Real and Mission Road and to the BART station parking gazage and lot. Existing transit service San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) operates several bus services in San Mateo County in the vicinity of the project. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board provides commuter rail service (CalTrain) from San Francisco to Gilroy. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system maintains a station near the project site. City of South San Francisco Page 51 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 BART presently provides rapid rail service east from San Francisco to Richmond, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, and Fremont, and south to Millbrae. The extension to San Francisco International Airport was recently completed as well as a new South San Francisco station located at 1333 Mission Road in the vicinity of the site. CalTrain provides frequent passenger train service between San Jose and San Francisco Monday through Friday, and limited bus service on the weekends. During commute hours, CalTrain provides extended service south of San Jose to Gilroy. The South San Francisco station at Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue is located approximately 2.5 miles from project site. SamTrans Route 35 and Route 36 provide bus service to El Camino High School and the residential areas to the west. These bus routes operate along Mission Road and El Camino Real in the vicinity of the project site. The hours of operation are 7:45 am to 8:30 am and 3:00 pm to 3:35 pm on school days only. Morning headways are 30 minutes, while afternoon headways are 8 minutes. SamTrans Route 130 provides bus service between the Daly City BART Station and downtown South San Francisco at Airport Boulevard. This bus route operates along Mission Road in the vicinity of the project site. The hours of operation are 5:30 am to 11:30 pm on weekdays and 8:30 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. Commute and midday headways are 20 minutes apart on weekdays and 30 minutes apart on weekends. Headways aze 60 minutes apart during the evenings. SamTrans Route 131 provides bus service between the Colma BART Station and the Tanforan Shopping Center in San Bruno. This bus route also operates along Mission Road in the vicinity of the project site, turning north onto Evergreen. The hours of operation are 6:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekends. Commute headways aze 30 minutes on weekdays and 60 minutes on weekends. Headways are 60 minutes during the midday of weekdays. SamTrans Route 193 provides bus service between San Francisco State University and San Francisco International Airport. This new bus route also operates along El Camino Real Road in the vicinity of the project site. SamTrans Route 390 provides bus service along El Camino Real between the Daly City BART Station and University Avenue in Palo Alto. The hours of operation are 5:30 am to 1:30 am everyday. Commute headways are 20 minutes apart on weekdays and 30 minutes on weekends. Headways are 30 minutes during the midday. SamTrans Route 391 provides bus service between the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco and Redwood City. This bus route also operates along El Camino Real in the vicinity of the project site. The hours of operation are 4:30 am to 2:30 am everyday. Commute and midday headways are 30 minutes, while evening headways aze 60 minutes. Existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Pedestrian facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site include pedestrian signals at all of the signalized City of South San Francisco Page 52 initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 intersections and crosswalks at all of the study intersections. Sidewalks aze provided on the east side of El Camino Real south of BART Access Road #1 and along both sides of El Camino real north of the BART Access Road. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class II), and bike routes (Class III). Bike paths aze paved trails that are separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes are roadways that are designated for bicycle use by signs only and may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists. In the vicinity of the site, El Camino Real is designated as a bike route. A future bicycle path is identified along the McLellan Drive from Mission Road to Hillside Boulevard. A bike path is being constructed on the BART right-of--way. This path will extend from Colma to the Millbrae Station. The roadway construction of Lawndale Boulevard from Mission Road to Hillside Boulevazd will include bike lanes in each direction. Level of Service methodologies The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term "level of service." Level of service is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service aze defined ranging from Level A, the best operating conditions, to Level F, the worst operating conditions. Level of Service (LOS) E corresponds to "at-capacity" operations. When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. Different criteria and methodologies were used to assess operating conditions for the different types of intersections, signalized and unsignalized (stop sign controlled). The level of service criteria and methodologies for each are described in the following sections. The operations of the signalized intersections were calculated using the methodology described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HC~ (Transportation Research Boazd). This methodology correlates the LOS to the average control delay experienced at the intersection. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration. The average delay for the signalized intersections, calculated using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software, is correlated to a level of service. In South San Francisco, acceptable signalized intersection operations aze defined as LOS D or better. For unsignalized (four-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled) intersections, the level of service calculations were conducted using the methodology contained in Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS rating is based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. LOS is reported for the longest-delayed turning movement. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. At four-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced on all approaches. Existing intersection traffic volumes and lane confrgurations The operations of the intersections were analyzed under weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions. Peak conditions usually occur during the morning and evening commute periods City of South San Francisco Page 53 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 between 7:00 and 9:00 am and between 4:00 and 6:00 pm, respectively. Intersection operations were evaluated for the hour during each of these periods with the highest measured traffic volumes. Traffic volumes from available peak-hour traffic counts were obtained from the El Camino Real Amended Redevelopment Plan EIR (Crane Transportation Group, March 2000), the Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traff c Study (Crane Transportation Group, Apri12002), and an existing June 2001 count. New counts were conducted at the intersections of Hickey Boulevard and El Camino Real, Costco Driveway and El Camino Real, and Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real in January 2003 to supplement this information. The results of the January 2003 counts are presented in Appendix A of the full traffic report. Existing intersection Levels of Service The existing volumes were used with the existing lane configurations and signal phasings/timings as inputs to the LOS calculations to evaluate the current operations of the key intersections. The results of the intersection analysis are presented in Table 4 of the Traffic analysis. All of the intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better. Therefore, all of the intersections are operating at acceptable levels. Transportation system improvements McLellan Drive has been extended from El Camino Real to Mission Road to provide access to the South San Francisco BART Station. At its intersection with El Camino Real, the westbound approach has one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. On its eastbound approach to Mission Road, one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane is provided. A new two-lane roadway, Lawndale Boulevard connects Mission Road to Hillside Boulevard. On its westbound approach to Mission Road, it has one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one sharedthrough/right-turn lane. In addition, BART ,Access Road #1, a two-lane road, is being constructed between El Camino Real and Mission Road to provide access to the BART parking garage and lot. At its intersection with Mission Road, the eastbound approach has one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane. Regulatory framework The Transportation Element of the South San Francisco General Plan contains the following guiding policies regarding the local street system and traffic operations and service standards. Policy 4.2-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternative 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: a) there is a practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service, or b) the uses resulting from the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. Policy 4.2-G-10: Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station or aCity-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. City of South San Francisco Page 54 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Protect Impacts a) Cause an increase in traff c which is substantial to existing traff c load and street capacity? LS/M. The following analysis has been prepared to address the impacts of the proposed project. Trip generation and distribution The project proposes the construction of 99 high-density residential dwelling units. Based on standard trip generation rates published in the 6`t` edition of the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Highway Engineers, the proposed Park Station project would generate 558 daily trips, with 43 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 52 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed project would not generate more than 100 peak-hour trips and therefore does not require review by C/CAG. Project intersection impacts Based on the analysis performed by DKS Associates, all intersections near the proposed project, with one exception, would operate at acceptable levels during peak hour conditions. The intersection of Mission Road and Evergreen Drive is projected to operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. These intersection operations exceed the minimally acceptable level of service established by the City. The proposed Park Station project would minimally add to vehicle delay at this intersection and at delays at other project intersections. This impact would be considered potentially significant and adherence to the following measure would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 10. The project developer shall make a fair share contribution to assist in signalizing the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersection. The contribution shall be made at or prior to issuance of building permits. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? LS. Construction of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact since it is anticipated to generate at less than 100 p.m. peak hour trips. c) Change in air traff c patterns? NI. The proposed project involves construction of a high density residential project. There would be no impact to current air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Access to the project site is proposed to be provided by one driveway on El Camino Real. The drive approach would be sited and designed to meet City of South San Francisco design standards to ensure adequate sight line distances are maintained. Based on a peer review comment regarding potential safety hazards for vehicles exiting the project site and desiring to travel in a southbound direction with the presence of a raised median in El Camino real across from the project driveway, it is anticipated that such vehicles would turn right on El Camino Real, merge into the northbound left turn lane and City of South San Francisco Page 55 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 then make a u-turn and continue south. Or, instead of making an immediate u-turn, motorists may elect to continue driving northbound and make a u-turn further north. In any event, the project traffic engineer notes that the relatively low number of southbound traffic (21 vehicles in the a.m. peak and 10 vehicles in the p.m. peak), residents of the proposed project would quickly become familiar with local traffic conditions and take alternative southbound routes- that would minimize u-turns, or would take advantage of gaps in southbound El Camino real traffic created by the signal at the El Camino ReaUBART intersection and time southbound u-turns appropriately. Potential impacts to traffic safety are therefore considered aless-than-significant impact. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS/M. One main entrance and exit to the project site is proposed from El Camino Real. Access to the underground parking garage is provided by this access. A secondary drive is proposed from the BART garage driveway, however, this drive would only serve three guest parking spaces and would not be linked to the garage. In the event of a major situation at the drive entrance along El Camino Real, access to the project site for emergency equipment could be blocked. This would be a potentially significant impact and the following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 11. A second access shall be provided into the site, either via a second. full-access drive, an emergency vehicle access or similar accessway. If an emergency vehicle access or other accessway is provided, the location, size and design of the access shall be approved by the South San Francisco Fire Department. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? NI. The site plan shows a total of 121 parking spaces with a parking ratio is 1.2 spaces per unit, which would exceed City requirements of 1.0 space per dwelling required by the Transit Village Plan. No impacts are therefore anticipated. g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed project would provide pedestrian linkages to the nearby BART station. Bicycle facilities are included in the project design. No impact would therefore result to pedestrian or bicycle access near the site. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Settine The project area is served by the following service providers: • Water sunnly: California Water Service. This private water company obtains water via an agreement with the San Francisco Water Department and from groundwater resources. In addition to South San Francisco, the water company serves customers in San Carlos and San Mateo. The Water company prepares a range of water use projections based on City of South San Francisco Page 56 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 fluctuations in population and employment demands. The company has indicated an adequate water supply for the highest projected demand for future uses. Sewage collection, treatment and disposal: City of South San Francisco. The City's sanitary sewer collection system has an interconnecting work of gravity sewers, force mains and pump stations which function together to bring wastewater from individual properties to the Water Quality Control Plant. A number of the sewer lines, especially in the east of 101 area, are older and experience infiltration and inflow (i/i) during wet weather conditions which cause the capacity of pump stations and the Water Quality Control Plant to be exceeded. Older pump stations have also experienced reliability problems. The City has recently initiated a program to replace and rehabilitate older sewer facilities. Wastewater treatment is accomplished at the City's Water Quality Control Plant, located at the easterly terminus of Belle Air road just south of Colma Creek. The Plant also provides service for the City of San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport and portions of other communities. The Plant has been recently upgraded and expanded to accommodated growing employment uses in the Plant's service azea and to meet Regional Water Quality Control Boazd discharge requirements. • Storm drainage: City of South San Francisco maintains a series of drainage pipes and culverts through the City to accommodate stormwater runoff. East of the 280 freeway, stormwater flows into Colma Creek for ultimate disposal in San Francisco Bay. Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co (PG&E). provides electrical and natural gas service to the City of South San Francisco through a series of overhead and underground electrical lines. Existing pump stations receive electrical power from PG&E. • Communications: Southwestern Bell (SBC) provides a range of telephone and telecommunication service to homes and businesses in the community. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The proposed project would contribute additional wastewater flows to the City's Water Quality Control Plant. The plant has been recently expanded to provide for additional dry weather sewage flows and an expansion was approved by the City to expand the Plant's wet weather capacity as well. The expansion would be able to accommodate additional flows. resulting from the development of the proposed project. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? NI. Additional sewage flows resulting from development of the proposed project could be accommodated by the Water Quality Control Plant that has recently been expanded by the City. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS/M. Refer to the Hydrology section (Section 8), subsection "c." City of South San Francisco Page 57 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. Based on information provided by the water supplier for the proposed project, adequate long-term water supplies exist to serve the proposed project (source: personal communication with California Water Services). e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? NI. See response to "a," above. e, f) Solid waste disposal? LS. Small quantities of solid waste would be generated by the implementation of the proposed protect, which would be construction debris. This amount of solid waste is anticipated to be less-than-significant and can be accommodated in the local sanitary landfill. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the proposed project be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of 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? No. T1~e preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources. b) Does the project 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). No, the proposed project involves the construction of a high density residential project near the South San Francisco BART station. The proposed project includes minor amendments to the General Plan and Transit Village Zoning District, so that cumulative impacts were previously assessed in the City's General Plan EIR. In addition, none of the foregoing analysis has shown that the project would contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality, traffic or any other impact area. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of South San Francisco Page 58 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager and principal author Charles Cornwall, Environmental Vision, photosimulations George Nickelson, PE. Peer Review of Traffic Analysis Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of South San Francisco Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Mo Dong, Fire Marshal (former) Summerhill Homes Elaine Breeze, Senior Development Manager California Water Service Mike Utz, Water Engineer References Projections 2005, Association of Bay Area Governments CEOA Guidelines, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 1999 Historical Evaluation of the Structures at 1410 El Camino Real, South San Francisco. Archeological Resource Mana e€~, December, 2003 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1410 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, Levine Fricke, November 2003 South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Plannin Ig sues, Dyett & Bhatia, 1997 South San Francisco General Plan, Dyett &Bhatia, 1999 South San Francisco General Plan EIR, EIP Associates, 1999 Traffic Impact Analysis, 1410 El Camino Real-Housing_Development Project, DKS Associates, 2003, updated 2004 and 2005 City of South San Francisco Page 59 Initial Study/Park Station Project October2005