Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 43-2011 RESOLUTION NO. 43 -2011 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2000 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT _ WHEREAS, Metron, PTP (Owner) and Stuart Welte, AI.A (Applicant) have proposed construction of a four -story mixed -use residential and commercial development, consisting of 20 residential condominiums above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground -floor commercial space and 35 on -site and six on- street parking spaces ( "Project ") on an approximately 17,582 square foot (0.41 acre) site, which is currently vacant, located at the northwest corner of McLellan Drive and Mission Road ( "Project Site ") in the City of South San Francisco ( "City"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the Project Site is located within the City's El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area; and, WHEREAS, in 1993 the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (1993 EIR) and in 2000, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environment Impact Report for the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment (2000 SEIR), which analyzed the environmental impacts of developing the Project Site with a mix of residential, retail, and office uses; and, WHEREAS, in certifying the 2000 SEIR, the City Council adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), imposing mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment to levels of less- than - significance, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable; and, WHEREAS, for the reasons stated in this Resolution, the proposed Project, while slightly different than the development analyzed in the 2000 SEIR, would not result in any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum to the 2000 SEIR to address the changes and explain why a subsequent EIR is not required; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2010, to consider the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR, the proposed Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 9, 2011, to consider the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR, the proposed Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement and take public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Addendum and the Final 2000 SEIR, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the Addendum, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan, and the 1993 Environmental Impact Report, including all attachrnents and technical reports thereto; the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment, and the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, including all attachments and technical reports thereto; the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR prepared for the Project; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Design Review Board meetings held on July 21, 2009 and May 18, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on December 2, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearing on March 9, 2011; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Addendum for the Project, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, the MMRP, attached as Exhibit B, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit C, are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if each were set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov't Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 5. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council has considered the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR for the Project, as well as the Final 2000 SEIR, and based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the following findings regarding the environmental analysis of the Project: a. Development of the Project Site with a mix of residential, retail, and office uses was analyzed in the 2000 SEIR; and the proposed Project would be developed with a mix of residential and retail uses that would not exceed the development density or intensity analyzed in the 2000 SEIR. b. Changes to the Project since certification of the 2000 SEIR are not substantial changes that require major revisions to the 2000 SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects because though the Project Site has been downsized, the Project would not exceed the development density or intensity assumptions of the 2000 SEIR. c. Changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, since certification of the 2000 SEIR, are not substantial changes that require major revisions to the 2000 SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects because though the Project Site has been downsized, the Project would not exceed the development density or intensity assumptions of the 2000 SEIR. d. There is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates the Project will have any significant effects not discussed in the 2000 SEIR, that significant effects discussed in the 2000 SEIR will be substantially more severe than shown in the 2000 SEIR, that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce any significant effects of the project, or that mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2000 SEIR would substantially reduce any significant effects of the Project. e. Mitigation measures adopted as part of the MMRP for the 2000 SEIR would also operate to avoid or minimize impacts of the proposed Project to levels of less -than- significance; accordingly, the MMRP, attached as Exhibit. B, should be re- adopted for the proposed Project. f. The 2000 SEIR identified certain significant and unavoidable impacts of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, for which the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA. To the extent any of those significant and unavoidable impacts would apply to the proposed Project, the City Council makes the findings described in Exhibit C and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C. g. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, and in accordance with CEQA, the Addendum is sufficient to approve the Project, and a subsequent EIR is not required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and hereby: (i) adopts the Addendum attached as Exhibit A; (ii) adopts the MMRP attached as Exhibit B; and (iii) adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 9 day of March, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mark Addiego, Pedro Gonzalez, and Karyl Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino and Mayor Kevin Mullin NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: -- _ %+ /All V City Cl a Exhibit A Addendum to 2000 SEIR ADDENDUM TO THE 2000 EL CAMINO REAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC14 #1999 - 032051 for 1309 MISSION ROAD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA November 2, 2010 Allison Knapp Wollam Planning and Environmental Consulting TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 -24 Project Description 1 Land Use, Planning and Zoning 2 Development Changes in the Project Area 13 Legislative Changes Addressing Environmental Issues 16 City of South san Francisco Project Review Process 16 Following Chapters 24 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2 -1 -71 Aesthetics 2-2 Agricultural Resources 2 -5 Air Quality 2 -6 Biological Resources 2 -29 Cultural Resources 2 -32 Geology and Soils 2 -34 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2 -39 Hydrology and Water Quality 2 -43 Land Use and Planning 2 -48 Mineral Resources 2 -52 Noise 2-53 Public Services 2-60 Recreation 2 -61 Transportation and Traffic 2 -63 Utilities and Service Systems 2 -66 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 -70 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 3 -1 -4 Findings 3 -1 Environmental Determination 3-4 i CHAPTER 1 ti PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Clarurn Homes in concert with Environmental Innovations in Design, Architects and Giuliani & Kull, Inc. Civil Engineering propose a mixed -use residential and commercial building at 1309 Mission Road in South San Francisco, CA (Project site). The 17,582 square foot (0.41 acre) site is located at the northwest corner of McLellan Drive and Mission Road directly across from the South San Francisco BART station. The El Camino High School is southeast of the site, the Town of Coltna and cemeteries are north and northeast of the site. A vacant parcel owned by SamTrans is adjacent to the west property line of the site. The Coma Creek flood channel separates the site from a development that consists of ground floor retail and upper floor residences fronting both on El Camino Real and Mcl.,ellan . Drive. The Applicant proposes two stories of 20 residential condominium units above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground floor retail and potentially office use.' Twenty percent of the residential units would be provided to and quailify as inclusionary housing, per state redevelopment law and the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Chapter 20). The Project includes 35 onsite parking spaces, both surface and underground, six parking spaces along the McLellan Drive frontage per Section 20.250.004(n)(2) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code) for a total of 41 parking spaces. The application includes a request for a Zoning District Map amendment from Transit Village Medium Density Residential to Transit Village High Density Residential, which is discussed further under 'Transit Village Plan'. (TVP). The amendment is necessary to bring the zoning designation into conformance with the City's General Plan. A south -east corner design. element, at the Mission Road and McLellan Drive intersection, would add a third - story- residential loft and at this one area the height would be 50 feet above grade. The height of the remaining portions of the building would be 35 feet. Residential units would include a mix of one -story one- to three- bedroom units and two two -story four- bedroom units comprising the south -east corner unit, referenced above as a design element. The bedroom rnix would include two one - bedroom units; 14 two- bedroom units; two three- bedroom units; and two four- bedroom units. 1 The Initial Study includes office use as part of the Project in the evert that in the future the applicant or successor apply for a conditional use permit to include office use on the ground floor. The Project proposes pedestrian pathways on the site and perimeter and podium landscaping as well as landscaping a vacant adjacent lot owned by SamTrans. The application materials indicate a variety of Green elements to be incorporated into the Project design. These elements include solar electric power, on- demand water heating, structured plumbing with re- circulating pumps, a thermally wrapped building envelope, energy star appliances, low e- windows, water saving fixtures, additional building insulation and low or no VOC paints and adhesives. Other sustainable elements include radiant roof barriers, solar window shading and optional cork and bamboo flooring, whole house vacuums, indoor air exchange and wheatboard frame cabinetry in the units that are offered for purchase. Requested Entitlements The Project sponsor is requesting the following entitlements: • Amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning District Map to (1) correctly reflect Transit Village Commercial (TV -C) on a portion of the subject parcel, as designated in the 2001 South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, and (2) reclassify the remainder of the subject parcel from Transit Village Medium Density Residential ('1V -RM) to Transit Village High Density Residential (TV RH); amendment to Figure 20.250.004(D) "Maximum Building Height" to reclassify the subject parcel's maximum allowable building height from 35 feet to 55 feet; and amendment to Figure 20.250.004 (E) "Setback Requirements" to reclassify the Mission Road frontage requirement from G1 -60 to C-1 -80, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code ( SSFMC) 20.550. • Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and Affordable Housing Agreement to construct a new Mixed Use Development consisting of 20 condominium units, approximately 5,200 square feet of commercial space, and authorize a 25 percent reduction in the number of required commercial parking spaces at 1309 Mission Road in the Transit Village (Medium Density Residential proposed to be High Density Residential) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Title 19, and Chapters 20.250, 20.480 & 20.490. LAND USE, PLANNING AND ZONING South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance -1999 The South San Francisco General Plan (1999) identifies the site as Community Commercial with a High Density Residential overlay. The Zoning Map identifies the site as Transit Village Medium Density Residential (TV RM). The Project site is within the South San Fravxisco BART Transit Vilkzge Plan (TVP) and the El Camino C ridor Re lewlapnvnt Plan (ECRRP) areas. The TVP was adopted in August, 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2 of 24 and land use impacts were adequately addressed through an adopted initial study and mitigated negative declaration of environmental significance. The amendment to the ECRRP was adopted in April, 2000 and land use impacts were adequately addressed through a certified supplemental environmental impact report (2000 ECREIR) tiering off the 1993 EIR for the original Plan Area adoption. The South San Francisco General Plan was adopted in February, 1999 and land use impacts were adequately analyzed in a certified environmental impact report. Transit Village Plan and Zoning -2001 Existing Designations The existing land use and zoning designation is Transit Village Medium Density Residential (TV-R.1\1). Maximum residential development density is 30 dwelling units per acre, notwithstanding a 25% density bonus for inclusionary housing meeting state requirements. Short building setbacks are required; an active streetscape is required. The maximum permitted building height is 35 feet. Residential land use above podium parking is permitted for sites designed with rear access and tuck under and surface parking configurations (VP, Prototypes Ivey Map, PT3 and 4, page 63). The Project proposes surface and below -grade parking, bicycle parking and storage areas. Proposed Designation. The requested 'IV -RH amendment permits 50 dwelling units per acre. The designation requires residential uses above podium parking and street front retail along McLellan Drive. The Project proposes 49 dwelling units per acre, podium parking Ixith residential above and retail commercial on the ground floor along the McLellan Street frontage. The proposed Zoning District Map amendment to Transit Village High Density Residential would result in the same zoning designation as the General Plan because the RH land use corresponds directly to high density residential development zoning standards. The RH designation would also bring the land use designation into conformance with the General Plan high density residential land use designation. El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan 1993 and 2000 Amendment In 2000 the City amended the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan that was adopted July 14, 1993. The ECRRP's purpose is stated to eliminate blight, retain business, promote commercial rehabilitation, construct public infrastructure improvements and make improvements to various housing developments in the Plan 'area. The ECRRP amendment (2000 Amendment) added approximately 80 acres of property to the planning area (Plan Area) boundaries and modified development assumptions on 23 sites within the Plan Area. The 2000 ..3.mendrnent increased commercial development in the Plan Area from 88,000 to 443,800 square feet, office development from 13,000 to 189,900 square feet and reduced the potential for housing development from 1,240 to 757 units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed the development changes on each of the 23 sites. The Project site is PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 3 of 24 identified as Site 3, or the Cuneo Property in the 2000 ECREIR on Table 3.0 -1 (page 3.0 -7) and Figure 3.0 -2 (unnumbered page 3.0 -12). Figure 1.1 El Camino Redevelopment Project Area on pages six and seven illustrates the Redevelopment Plan Area and the sites analyzed for development. The ECREIR analyzed the Project site development intensity at 21 multi - family residential units (37.5 dwelling units per acre), 18,400 square feet of retail commercial (a 1.5 FAR) and 18,400 square feet of office (2000 ECREIR, Table 3.0 -1, page 3.0 -7). The development table from the 2000 ECREIR, Table 1.1 Development Assumptions in the ECRRP, is reproduced on pages eight through 11 in this chapter. Development Assumptions on the Project Site As noted above, development intensity on the Project site has been envisioned and analyzed through various environmental documents associated with the General Plan, ECRRP and TVP. These three plans envisioned a maximum development of 37.5 dwelling units per acre (page 32, Table 2.2 -1 General Plan, Page 3.0 -7 ECREIR, page 105 TVP). The density corresponds to 30 dwelling units per acre plus a 25°, o density bonus for inclusionary housing, on a site larger than it exists today. The development assumptions for the Project site have remained constant over the past 12 years while the area of the site has changed. The acreage of the Project site changed as a result of the extension of BART to South San Francisco. In 1999 and 2000 both the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan amendments noted the site at 0.75 acre. The 2001 TVP identifies the Project site as 0.67 acres in anticipation of land area changes due to BART construction. Subsequently the Project site was reduced to 0.41 acres as a result of SamTrans' purchase of 0.34 acres which was used as staging and storage during BART construction. In summary, the maximum residential development intensity envisioned in the three plans for the Project site has remained constant for the past 12 years notwithstanding the changes in site area. The discrepancies between high and medium density development densities contained in the three plans are a reflection of the changes in site area and not planned development intensity. The maximum residential development permitted for the site, in absence of a density bonus, is 21 units. Therefore, the Project proposes a TVP Land Use and Zoning Map (Map TV -01) amendment to High Density Residential with the Commercial overlay to construct 20 units of housing and 5,200 square feet of retail commercial on the 0.41 acre site, which would not exceed the density assumptions analyzed and planned over the past 12 years. Other Plan Considerations Common With and Outside the Project Area -South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment -2010 Although the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (S/ECRGPA) area is predominately outside the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Area, a discussion of PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 4 of 24 this planning area is included in this document for two reasons. First, two sites within the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Area are common with the S /ECRGPA. Secondly, a discussion of the S /ECRGPA along with the TVP and ECRRP provides the context of planning documents that affect the entire El Camino Real Corridor. The City, on March 24, 2010, adopted S /ECRGPA. The S /ECRGPA is south of the ECRRP and TNT areas and is located along the southern portion of El Camino Real, between Chestnut and Noor Avenues. The ECRRP and the S /ECRGPA overlap on two sites, those being approximately 89,000 square feet of retail frontage along the El Camino Corridor extending from Westborough Avenue to South San Francisco High School (identified as Site 21 on Figure 3.0 -3 on Figure 14 and South San Francisco High School (identified as Site 22, op. cit.). The ECRRP area consists largely of the northern and middle portions of El Camino Real while the S /ECRGPA consists of the central and southern portions of the El Camino Corridor. The City certified the S /ECRGPA environmental impact report (SCH #2009062070) on March 24, 2010. The S /ECRGPA targets higher intensities and mixed -use development in the southern portion of the El Camino Real corridor. The City's vision is to foster the El Camino Real as an urban, pedestrian - friendly, transit- oriented corridor for residents to live, work and play. The vision reflects the City's support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative for the El Camino Real and proactively encourages compact mixed -use and high - quality development. The S /ECRGPA proactively addresses issues identified in. the State of California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and the State's greenhouse gas emission law (SB375) by actively promoting higher density transit oriented mixed use development. See Figure 1.2 Plan Areas for an identification of the three planning areas along the El Camino Corridor. The S /ECRGPA creates a land use designation, El Camino Real Mixed Use, intended to accommodate high- intensity active uses and mixed -use development in the South El Camino Real area. Development intensity increases in this area to a minimum of a 0.6 FAR with half or 0.3 being active uses. On sites greater than three acres, the minimum FAR increases to 2.5 and in some instances to a total of 3.5. Residential densities range from 60 to 80 units per acre. 2020 buildout is anticipated to increase the population by 2,410; housing units by 840; commercial by 0.3 million square feet; and create approximately 700 new jobs. The S /ECRGPA EIR analyzed the increase in development intensity throughout the plan area but not on a site specific basis as did the 2000 ECREIR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 5 of 24 , \ 4 • \ • , \ ,,,,,\,, 4 .i. j . , ..■._ ..,___. . , -.,\ ,,,-.,\ „.. t„, o \-. • . '',.'':,-,,,. vo ,,,•• . 4 „ _._ • . „...- , , , x,\,,,„ ,,--, 40 • *. .- . \,,,, , .0 o 4 -/ v. • • • .-4 ,,,,, • A. , N • 1 e , 10 0 ie * 0 e I 4 s 411b .■<' \' ALTA LOMA SCHOOL S '',`:' \\ • "X / " fiti) •# S #4% #. 114: vi■ s .• , ■ • %. ..4. \ ,„, i• To ..z.70 \ •■ 4 \\--. 44 #6..... 1411 , 1 t - ,. - :,'_, *.# • • - KiusER Nr. \ "lifilirt: ' -404 • , •• • • \.. • • ' • ,% * ••• 0 PER"i m earrt Ericr 441/4..'' "%it 4:fel ,, re* i 46 % PotorrY ,s• 104,,V --- 4# (D ® 'i? 40b. d e ■ , 4 4# ■ -4% 4 .• • 44, 20 • . CENTE 1417 I' a* *Ai OP * 0 4 • 111 P% • • • 11 46 7 k 0 ) - 4. ..., , \ , S Y ■ = NOT IN PROJECT AREA I\ ■\ \ \ \ . —) FIGURE 1.1 EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1 of 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 6 of 24 I S 4 " 4 a dim iwier Abisip ( • ..0.-.. WILLOW GARDENS ,, : lb 44 �Q4: - j7 Awsi ~ f ��� •,, , \ - NEIGH ;�.�� , . ` t op, il kips r + { ter a,..e SW • .% • t � •��`► I '► � '► � , � a _' : a �rt IS k 4 1 44, tt irs O I `�" ` s r • 4,1. pi Iii #x r � �� % tIi.t: �• 4 . •`: �: :r o es, ♦r,, . r� rrl i ��rii • W eirUi '' ot f o irat q% • rir rri rir v. • 40.4 ,,;;;;:ii4 li lip ■ t .- ...44. /� /ii , 11 , /�- l II�� / i ce In / l///1 /// ' /I///// U / // / /ij 1 /lll l l/!/I li ir i // //ll//I/I/Il ' I///l�: �, ��i � � 0 1 � 1 1 .t uli�r�r !//� //j 11/// �' w � 7: 4 1 :47 :11'1411--11 E ; rnsr� ► I I ► � �� /� / /// +, VA i, )4° - ili ffir .. Afik EL CAMINO REAL � I t o � , w COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE IP I � ♦ c�' ♦ ♦ ♦ /i► g-,,,, I , ♦ ♦.. 01! 0 ■ 444 ♦4i LiC,r, 0104 00 • /Mil ."2 1* • \A • 1.6 .41., 4 .4I i i ♦�� w �� 4+ t l j � �b * ♦ 0 1.T •I b l1omG0 I. \ fuse SO JTH ♦i ♦"� P O ,V SAMFwwCISCO T i � �„� Q��� HIGH SCHOOL FIGURE 1.1 EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 2 of 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 7 of 24 #K 0 0 4 fl °. f 1 , : e0 ,}d O 0, b a v g' O U of C ' '1.!„Aii',:,, .;,""- .9 m t ali "": 5. 1 0 i .- , 1A 1,; R E „ 0 .". fl N ' ' 1 . 1 - 1.- , .0 0 z 41-Z 2 i r■ 1 1 r C4 CJ U a. cz p i e , • m w ,W �i a� 1 Ms . R`� � � as 4 s' '� • a IX IX fi r -: - . ;fir ' . i r: u ;� 1 b0 [ N EU C I- I i � w � R e c R > is b ... > 4 W o a M — O - in i N h N N IQ C vs C 0 O .52 r + N › , u c"7 41 W et, F-+ . 1 > to V iA V 7, Z Ln ae 14 TABLE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECRRP 1 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 24 .E 8 is .4 r E .6. 2 2 2 3 ' a . a v Q I E p® C ro w agi Re .4 I ® G G '} m � o °� o u eo E b "� 8 a o4 Z $24 0 :t. g " «: o 0 0 o o a a o o °° o aa , o o G o ,S2 Z 2 2 cn V x4` of a F+ LLB 4k 0 @ '° `a ® C no u� C+ d * "� a . "' " ' C . STS . { 1 a d y a tun • • -a d a` -a @ TS N . n 94 a 0 o 4)+ . P4 P4 Oq 1 ta v '`� i I 2 o Z Z o a Z 2 2 g F z 85 3 3 H o O O co m u7 M N N N M M Q , in N 1 t6 N C 0 fo,., >.., f 2 'i E ',.ft.g.t) it t, g .,..,.5 is In ua O in = Z .a iii n a4 vi Jr) : (3 tv n A in in U U Er) U U in O TABLE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECRRP 2 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 9 of 24 ° RI y h S1 'C3 % O p z � IS, 1 . y O4 p 1 X. I C g .. M ai § jug xg u' 7 i v i �. 4r 61 �" Cl 0� „' C.' & z a a � d .c� iT + u 0 0 o h o 0 0 .,, ,-, L'' N z Z Z z z -'*-- : - ' +1 - + A P ta § g •... ;'C 33 vt'a 0 0 C Q "~ � 00 ,. R 0 0 0 0 ° � 00 aon ( 0 y .4 'N .4 2x Z Z Z:a Z Z .r Y3 . . � a d g Z z Z z io li _ .. .� 0 a C C ro r,. O u Z :E Z 5 3 ilbdo a a 4 .. , . . a e4 lb,. Z Z Z Z Z A - 0 r + .id + 0 0 'm .. L" . § E Z Z :. g'a $'4 0 g4 i5 0 1 il ae o b a �� no z z z z Q .,< a r. � � }� + u�i` d d w ° �4 v' c E.,0, 0. 1 r w e4 m . `' . *' d o 04�i t � O M OD �0 ON N MI M ? r~ O N E C). C+'I C� N y g ' M+ s4 1. .a � ' ' 'it Z A-- r uy w h LL ''' 00 q w 4 R •a O O ,.r . G N co �i ,..., .-� 4 y 4 , ri 4 rr L 4J '.1 w § •-' w N Q cJ eu .., N N . O . . 4 a .n: ,C . � i . i: p +.. iti . U c M cn •emu ' G <i' U Q R G �%1 O in U cn d ciii a in U n cn Fn in (9 a ui w U w cn C Luc') TABLE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECRRP 3 of 4 Page 10 of 24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : l1 b 1 {{ ti a , « i1 • • E. ' 7 + OOH! M i : ft fl au Q a t y a =1Ck O � �, a ms s ^-r < 0 4 � .ir € P, y O o " 2' M G y ° a' a '_ N S 1 .. q w a c o0 • w 'S. a ~ u �i t. h U o pi' ttli � _ `r`,.,p z 1 00 '' :. . � z. tt .� ', g, a +a 0; ,e q • w V w .. • y O 2. 1 •. • y.i .. i„ • qe . =vim ▪ —a c t s y o R,, > ,� !g fi to '4 r : a; ' a a � o,,�Y ' a1 • ". lw. .• k'ti y ' 4 � 0. q S V 7 '�.y A` � O _ '3 i H 1 w 7. 00 w a ��'` sd ° " _ ° � "f " $ #« , ,t, a +. i vo a � w � i ti t,J •.. w C H.... GJ bo y a x, c z N 0 v C3 . 0 4 v � �w i O w :, ..% ! --_,, Gi .. V 0 V 'T. .i..1-:.c) '� ,A CJ U 0 z,..N M `W 16.Gf\°O D7 TABLE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECRRP 4 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 11 of 24 DEVELOPMENT CHANGES IN THE PROJECT AREA Implementation of the City's General Plan, TNT and ECRRP has resulted in transportation improvements and land use development in the Project area. Transportation and circulation improvements identified in the Plans that have been completed since 2000 are the: • Water Quality Control Plant upgrade; • Colma Creek Flood .Improvement Channelization; • Hickey Boulevard extension; Restriping of Hickey Boulevard at junipero Serra approach for an exclusive left turn lane, exclusive through lane, and a shared through /right turn lane; modification of east /west signal for an exclusive left turn lane; Widening the southbound El Camino Real approach for an exclusive right turn lane at the El Camino Real /Westborough Boulevard/ Chestnut Avenue intersection; Fair share fee collection during entitlement review and approval (levied as a condition of approval) for the future signali7ation :Mission Road /Evergreen /Bart Access Road; BART Road construction; and McClellan Drive construction; • South San Francisco BART station construction; and • Centennial Way Trail (2.85 miles) from San Bruno BART Station to South San Francisco BART Station. Five key sites planned for redevelopment within ECCRP area have been developed and two are pending entitlement review. The sites as they were identified in the 2000 ECREIR have changed and merged as a result of the BART station and Centennial Way (linear park) construction. The sites that have been developed and the two pending sites are summarized below. The summary includes the development assumptions contained in the 2000 ECREIR and as -built conditions. The site numbers refer to their location in the 2000 ECREIR and as shown on Figure 1.1 Developed Sites • Sites 2 and 5: This combined site is developed with. the BART station and parking and a 147,000 square foot Costco with a 16 -pump gas station. The site also contains a mixed use 355 unit multi- family housing development with approximately 24,000 square feet of ground floor retail and office commercial. Approximately half or 12,000 square feet of commercial square footage is Trader Joes and the remaining 12,000 square feet is miscellaneous commercial consisting of Starbucks, Chase Bank, a dental office and some vacancies. The Centennial Way Trail (linear park) begins here and extends south to the San Bruno BART Station. The 2000 ECCEIR analyzed a 147,000 square foot Costco with a 16 -pump gas station, 300 multi - family PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 13 of 24 housing units, 294,000 sgnnre feet of community commercial and 171,500 square feet of office for this combined site. • Site 4: This site is developed with 179 single - family units, 34 townhomes and open space. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed the same development assumptions that are built. • Site 7: This site consists of Broadmoor Lumber and a cluster of 132 multi- family residential buildings built in the 1980's. Park Station Lofts (Summerfield Homes) was completed in 2009 and consists of 99 multi - family loft -style housing units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed 70 units of additional multi- family housing units and 122,500 square feet of community commercial land use on this site. The development potential assumed the eventual redevelopment of the lumber yard with residential units and retention of the existing 132 residential units built in the 1980's. The development table contained in the 2000 ECREIR (see Table 1.1) erroneously identified the existing residential development as 96 units. Notwithstanding this error, traffic counts taken in 1999/2000 accurately reflect traffic conditions associated with the 132 units. Therefore, the retail commercial development potential of the site remains outstanding and identified as potential development. • Site 14: This site, known as Oak Farms, was redeveloped with 32 single - family residential units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed 72 multi - family residential units. Subsequently an application was entitled to permit 32 single-family units. • Site 15: This site known as Chestnut Creek was developed with 40 units of senior housing subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR analysis of 28 multi- family units. Sites Pending Development Entitlements • Site 3 The Project site. The site is currently vacant. The Project proposes 5,200 square feet of retail commercial and 20 condominium units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed 21 units of multi - family housing, 18,400 square feet of retail commercial and 18,400 square feet of office. As noted above, the size of the site in the 2000 ECREIR was 0.75 acres. The size of the site now is 0.41 acres due to parcel reconfiguration as a result of the BART station development. • Site 21: Site 21 consists of a cluster of parcels fronting El Camino Real from Westborough Avenue to the South San Francisco High School. Mid- Peninsula Housing Coalition (Mid -Pen) owns the parcel sharing the high school's property line to the north. Mid -Pen was granted entitlements by the City to construct 109 multi- family units of affordable housing and 5,000 square feet of retail commercial on the site. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed an additional 8,900 square feet of commercial along the entirety of Site 21. The Mid -Pen portion of this site will develop 109 multi - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 14 of 24 family housing units that were not envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR and 5,000 square feet of the 8,900 square feet of commercial land use that was envisioned in 2000 ECREIR. The S /ECRGPA includes this site in the planned intensification of commercial and residential land use and permits a commercial 1.5 FAR and up to 80 dwelling units per acre. A negative declaration tiering from the S /ECRGPA RIR was approved for the Nlid -Pen project. The following Table 1.2 summarizes the changes in development assumptions subsequent to the 2000 ECRRP amendment as well as the two that are currendy under review. The sites identified are those where development differs from that a:naly zed in the 2000 ECREIR. Including the Mid -Pen and Project site, 165 additional residential units have been or are anticipated to be constructed, 305,000 square feet less commercial and 189,400 square feet less office has been developed. TABLE 1.2 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ON SITES REDEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 2000 ECREIR DEVELOPED SITES SITE RESIDENTIAL RETAIL OFFICE 2 and 5 + 55 - 293,000 - 171,500 7 +29 14 - 40 15 +12 PENDING ENTITi.EMENT REVIEW 3 PROJECT -1 - 12,300 - 18,400 21 +109 /1/ CHANGE +165 - 305,200 - 189,400 1/ The Mid -Pen Project would include 5,000 of the 8,900 square feet of commercial intensification on the collective parcels known as Site 21. Build -out of the Mid -Pen parcel does not obviate, but actually enhances, the opportunit to realize the ECRRP amendment development scenario on the remaining parcels. The development opportunity remains outstanding and as such the retail /office component is not counted as a loss or gain. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 15 of 24 1.2 LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ADDRESSING ]ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Several environmental regulations have been adopted and signed into law subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR. The laws address Global Climate Change in various forms, most notably Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Assembly Bill. 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) are two pieces of legislation requiring the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for environmental consideration. Chapter 2, Section 2, Air Quality contains a discussion of recent legislation and a GHG study. South San Francisco updated their development review procedure January 2010 to implement the new regional requirements mandated by the Regional Quality Control Board that will affect private development projects beginning December 1, 2011. See Chapter 1 Section 1.3.4 below. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether projected water supplies can meet a project's water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5) identify residential projects generally exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds. The California Water Service Company (CWSC) drafted and adopted an Urban Water management Plan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWIIP was established in accordance with the California Urban Water management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610 - 10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd. (c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. See Chapter Section 16.d for a more detailed discussion. 1.3 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of building permit issuance or a building or grading permit will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. As such, these requirements are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement. City of South San Francisco project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City's Technical Advisory- Group (TAG). TAG is comprised of representatives from planning, building, police, fire, engineering, parks and recreation, and water quality control. TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required in a project to comply with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City's Municipal Code. The Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to the PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 16 of 24 applicant identifying the changes required in project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with prevailing laws pursuant to site development, construction and land use. The applicant is required to revise the plans and supporting documentation or the application is not certified as complete and not processed. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the Planning Division to be routed again to all affected City departments and divisions; again to evaluate the application in light of their earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can be certified `complete' as well as identifying the Conditions of Approval ( COA's) that are required should the Project be approved. Many of these COA's implement environmental mitigations that were historically identified through the environmental review process (California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and now have become a part of the City's legislative requirements, through its general plan, special, area, or redevelopment plans, municipal code, special districts, or memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power). After a project application is complete it is subject to environmental, public and discretionary review through and by the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and /or City Council, depending upon the type of project, as defined by the Municipal Code of South San Francisco and state law. The COA's identified through staff review of the project, and any additional ones identified through the public review process become required of the project as a matter of law. Prior to the City issuing a building, grading and /or demolition permit all City departments and divisions (identified above) review the project plans for compliance with their identified COA's and any ones added through the public review process. Permits are not issued by the Building Division in absence of authorization from City staff or in absence of the requirements being incorporated into the Project plans. 1. Aesthetics Aesthetics Light and Glare: Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, the Design Review Board, and in some instances the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color, placement, design and compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured through this process. Potential environmental impacts and the need or lack thereof for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Type A, B or C Sign Permit procedure (Chapter 20.360 South San Francisco Municipal Code - Zoning). The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. Entitlement projects are vetted through the City's Design Review process. Projects are reviewed by the City's Design Review Board consisting of professional architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission and in some cases the City Council adds design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic corridor are further addressed through the CEQA process. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 17 of 24 2. Air Quality Air Quality Dust Control: All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and /or special Gil.) engineering and /or planning inspectors. The measures include: a. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets dab, (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. f. Hydroseed or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h. Install sandbags or other erosion - control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j. Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break -up of pavement. k. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 1. Use dust -proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. n. Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer - recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 18 of 24 o. Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. p. Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. Air Quality Toxic Air Contaminants: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 19 8) and /or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain a J- Permit from the BAAQMD. The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site and if it is not there the job will be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City's Building Division. Through this process, the BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that asbestos and lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead based paints and asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City supervision to insure compliance. Air Quality Vehicle Emissions: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Code. Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode use for all projects is twenty - eight percent and applicants who propose projects with increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. 3. Geology and Soils Geology and Soils Table 18 -1 -B Uniform Building Code: All construction projects are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in Volume 2 Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the construction specifications to mitigate potential impacts due to liquefaction. This requirement is enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division. Geology and Soils Geotechnical Reports: The City Engineering Division also requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports address design and construction specifications for the Project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City's consultant. Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 19 of 24 professional of record is required to sign all project drawings and the City's geotechnical consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement. 4. Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrology and Water Quality: South San Francisco updated their development review procedure January, 2010 to implement the new, regional requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that will affect private development projects beginning December 1, 2011. The following is a summary of applicable new requirements in Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ( "Municipal Regional Permit" or "MRP "). The full text may be downloaded at www.flowstobay.org /ms mnnicipalities.php. New restrictions on methods of stormwater treatment require that beginning December 1, 2011, all projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit - specified amount of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. However, biotreatment (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at the Project site. Criteria for determining infeasibility are scheduled to be developed by May 1, 2011. Vault -based treatment will not be allowed as a stand -alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault -based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatrnent, for example, to remove trash or other large solids. (See Provision C.3.c.i.2 of the MRP.) New rules for auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and uncovered parking begin on December 1, 2011. At that time, projects that create and /or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface related to auto service facilities', retail gasoline Z Auto service facilities, described by the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: • 5013: Establishments primarily engaged in wholesale distribution of motor vehicle supplies, accessories, tools, equipment, and parts. • 5014: Establishments primarily engaged in wholesale distribution of tires and tubes for passenger and commercial vehicles. • 5541: Gasoline service stations primarily engaged in selling gasoline and lubricating oils. • 7532: Establishments primarily engaged in the repair of automotive tops, bodies, and interiors, or automotive painting and refinishing. • 7533: Establishments primarily engaged in the installation, repair, or sale and installation of automotive exhaust systems. • 7534: Establishments primarily engaged in repairing and retreading automotive tires. 7536: Establishments primarily engaged in the installation, repair, or sales and installation of automotive glass • 7537: Establishments primarily engaged in the installation, repair, or sales and installation of automotive transmissions. • 7538: Establishments primarily engaged in general automotive repair. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 20 of 24 outlets, restaurants', and /or surface parking will be required to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement will apply to uncovered parking that is stand - alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structure, unless drainage from the uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.1 of the MRP). For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet will remain the regional threshold for requiring low impact development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment, although municipalities may have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent practicable for smaller projects. These new requirements are built into the following standard requirements. Hydrology and Water Quality Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Operational): All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Stout' Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C /CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COD's. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Typical storm water quality protection measures include: a. Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch. b. Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration /detention basins as feasible. c. Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and retention /detention basins into the site plan as feasible. d. Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable stout' water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design. • 7539: Specialized automotive repair such as fuel ser4-ice (carburetor repair), brake relining, front -end and wheel alignment, and radiator repair. 3 Restaurants described by SIC code 5812: Retail sale of prepared food and drinks for on- premise or immediate consumption. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 21 of 24 e, Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system. f. Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand strips before discharge to the City's storm drain system. Hydrology and Water Quality Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Construction): The City of South San Francisco requires through COA's, Project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco's Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and /or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormw ater protection measures include: a. Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near construction sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow. b. Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water before the drain inlets. c. Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas. d. Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control. e. Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets. f. Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control. g. Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly. h. Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud. i. Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. j. Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils. k. Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 22 of 24 1. Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather. m. Use terracing to prevent erosion. n. Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather season, October 15 to April 15` o. Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such activities that are controlled and away from water courses and perform major maintenance off -site or in designated areas only. p. Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule. q. Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers' instructions. 5. Noise Noise Interior Ambient Noise: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through state law and their General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively know n as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi - family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single - family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor - ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or Ld„) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or L Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance bv the Building Division. The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services in their Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2 -1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (page 280) guides land use decisions based upon noise thresholds and acoustical analysis and mitigation. Additionally, the General Plan (page 279) also guides and mitigates development in light of aircraft noise. The City implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours and participates in an aircraft noise insulation program. Figure 9 -1 of the General PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 23 of 24 Plan Aircraft Noise and Nois' Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dB A, L echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review. Noise Exterior Ambient Noise: The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code regulates noise pursuant to land use and time of day. Lower density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are implemented largely through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Fire Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. Construction noise is also regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the Chief Building Official. 1.4 FOLLOWING CHAPTERS Chapter 2 of this document contains the environmental checklist. The checklist compares the Project to the development assumptions contained in the 2000 ECREIR, initial stud; and 1993 EIR for the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and Amendment. Chapter 3 summarizes the findings contained in Chapter 2 and contains the environmental determination that an addendum to the 2000 ECREIR is the appropriate documentation for the Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 24 of 24 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This Environmental Checklist provides the technical analysis and discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed 1309 Mission Road Project. The Project site and development assumptions were analyzed in the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (2000 ECREIR). The following analysis tiers from the 2000 ECREIR, and as a result of the findings contained herein, the City is prepared to issue an addendum to the 2000 ECREIR as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The measures identified in the 2000 ECREIR would be included in the Project as a matter of law and would be implemented by being included as a part of Project design, construction and Project operations as well as City monitoring and permit issuance. The monitoring of the 2000 ECREIR mitigation measures would be assured through the monitoring and reporting requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in tandem with the terms of the City's Land Use permit through the building and grading permit processes, City inspections and as a prerequisite to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A "no impact' response indicates that the Project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource. A "less than significant' response indicates that, while there mat be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of the impact would not exceed established thresholds and /or that there are standard procedures or regulations in that would apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or that, although there is the potential for a significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available and have been agreed to by the Project Applicant to reduce the impact to a level of "less than significant" No "potentially significant impact' responses are identified, indicating that the Project would not exceed established thresholds and that therefore no impact that could not be avoided by utilizing standard operating procedures and regulations, program requirements, or design features as identified in this checklist as being incorporated into the Project. Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion. 1309 MISISON ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -1 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.1 AESTHETICS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project: a) Hare a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or X nighttime rieu•s in the area? SETTING Project Site The Project site is located on the corner of Mission Road and McLellan Drive directly across from the South San Francisco BART Station. Adjacent to the site on the west is a vacant parcel owned by the San Mateo Department of Transportation ( SamTrans) and was utilized during the BART extension to South San Francisco. The Colma Creek channel, also to the west, separates the SamTrans parcel from the mixed use high density residential commercial development that fronts both El Camino Real and McLellan Drive. The Town of Colrna and cemeteries are northeast and southeast is the El Camino High School. North and adjacent to the site is a multifamily residential development in the Town of Colma. The South San Francisco BART station is south of the site. The Project site, as noted, is relatively flat, is vacant and was previously graded as a part of BART construction and staging. South San Francisco South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on three sides. The City's terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in PAGE 2 -2 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY • CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north -south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. The Project would be located in an area of the City that has undergone a dramatic redevelopment surge as a result of the City's proactive Transit Village and El Camino Redevelopment Plan activities. The area contains pedestrian and transit friendly high density residential and commercial land uses with articulating facades, open space areas and seating areas. Project The Project would construct a mixed use commercial and residential project in an area developed with and planned for such use. The proposed maximum height is 50 feet with the majority of the building at or below 35 feet. Regulatory Framework As identified in Chapter 13.1, the Project is required by law to undergo review by the City's Design Review Board and incorporate changes by this Board and the Planning Commission as deemed necessary. This review regulates signage, design and light and glare. Moreover the TVP prescribes design review for projects within the plan area (SSFMC 20.250.005) and stipulates capitulation of the TVP guidelines to the Design Review Board. The maximum permitted height in the Project area is 80 feet (Special Area height Limitations, Figure 2 -3, 1999 General Plan, page 35). The height limitation is related to the airport height limitations pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commission oversight. The ALUC height limitation is based upon safety factors, whereas the TVP height limit of 35 feet (Maximum Building Heights, Figure 20.250.004(D)) is based upon design and community value considerations. The remaining portions of the building at approximately 40 feet. The Project site is not located within or nearby a scenic vista or scenic corridor (2000 ECREIR, 1999 General Plan, and General Plan Background Report). IMPACTS a) Scenic Vistas Significance Criyeria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a Project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a Project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative - appearing project within such a vista. Any dear conflict with a General Plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -3 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in the obstruction of a formally designated public vista (General Plan, Figure 2 -4 Vieu shed page 36). Additionally, the Project would not clearly conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes Significance Criteria: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project- related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway). The Project would not be visible from a state scenic highway. The Project site does not contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. Therefore the Project would have no impact on scenic resources. c) Visual Character Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The Project proposes landscaping, fac treatment, heights and parking that keeps with the vernacular of the neighborhood. The Project as a matter of law will be required to incorporate the considerations of the Design Review Board into the final design. Therefore the Project would have no impact on visual character. d) Light or Glare Significance Criteria: Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. Project implementation would involve installation of new light standards at various locations at the Project site. Lighting designs would employ fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials would not be sources of glare given the palette, materials, e- value, sunscreens and minimal use of reflective materials. No substantial increase of light and glare emanating from the Project site is anticipated, therefore the impact would be considered less than significant. Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the Project site or in the Project area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic or visual quality associated with the project. The Project would not exceed the height limits posed for safety concerns by the ALUC and at 35 to 50 feet would be comparable to adjacent development which reaches 55 feet in height. The Project would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the 2000 ECREIR and no new mitigation is required. PAGE 2 -4 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact fl. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or x Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, X or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? SETTING The Project site was graded as part of the BART expansion to South San Francisco. The 2000 ECREIR identified agricultural uses only within the area of Grand and Chestnut Avenues and certain greenhouses along El. Camino Real south of the Project sate; not the Project site. IMPACTS a — c) Farmland Impacts Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act contract, or involve any environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to non - agricultural uses. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at, or around, the Project site. No part of the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract and no part of the Project site or surrounding area is zoned for agricultural uses (South San Francisco General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, TVP and ECRRP). Therefore, the Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY _._...._ PAGE 2 -5 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The Project site is not planned or zoned for agricultural use and is not in agricultural use. The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any agricultural uses or impacts associated with development on the Project site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. 2.3 AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Question for Potentially Less Than Less Than DeterminationofEnvironmentallmpact Significant Significant with Significant Na Impact _ Mitigation Impact Impact III, AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the x applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial x pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? This air quality analysis was performed using methodologies and assumptions recommended within the existing and proposed air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This section describes existing air quality, criteria pollutant construction and operations impacts, impacts associated with generation of greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality Conditions of Approval (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2) that are required to be implemented as part of the project pursuant to the City of South San Francisco's project review process. 1 The Air Quality and Noise Sections and traffic generation analyzed the impacts of a 6,200 square foot retail component. The Project retail component was reduced in size 2 The BAAQMD Board approved and adopted new revised CEQAAirQuak,y Guidelines on June 2, 2010. PAGE 2 -6 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION SETTING Climate The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) extends from the area northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the center of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,00 {) feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to an elevation of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is below 200 feet, the marine layer is able to flow across most of the city, making its climate relatively cool and windy (Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Climatology http : / /www.baagmd.gov /Divisions /Communications and- OutreachlAir- Quality -in- the - Bay - .Brea /Bay - Area- Climatolol;;.asp, accessed April 19, 2010 (BAAQID, 2010). Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is approximately four miles southeast of the project site, are representative of general conditions in South San Francisco. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures at SFO are 56 and 42 °F, respectively, while average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum temperatures are 72 and 54 °F, respectively. Precipitation at SFO averages approximately 20 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center, 2010. Local Climate Data Summaries for San Francisco International Airport, California. Obtained online (http. / /www.wrcc.dri.edu /cgi- bin /clilcd.pl?ca on April 19, 2010). nnual average wind speeds range from five to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the peninsula. The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind pattern, however, it is influenced by local topographic features. That is, a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow around that feature instead of ov er it during stable atmospheric conditions. This can change the wind pattern by as much as 90 degrees over short distances. On mornings without a strong pressure gradient, areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flow in the surface layer, induced by upslope flow on the east - facing slopes and by the bay breeze. The bay breeze is rarely seen in the afternoon because the stronger sea breeze dominates the flow pattern (BAAQMD, 2010). Greenhouse Gases Introduction Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHG emissions has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate Change (GCC). Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the Earth's climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHG emissions. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -7 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing GCC. GCC is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased GHG emissions and long term global temperature increases. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth's temperature and emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and motor vehicles, have elevated the concentration of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHG emissions has contributed to GCC as an increase in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs include all of the following gases; carbon dioxide (CO methane (CH nitrous oxide (N hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons , nitrogen trifluroide (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (California lIealth and Safety Code section 38505(g)). CO is the reference gas for climate change because it gets the most attention and is considered the most important GHG. To account for the warming potential of GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO equivalents (CO The effects of GHG emission sources (i.e., individual projects) are reported in metric tons per year of CO California and Bay Area GI-IG Emissions GHG emissions contributing to GCC are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial /manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.' The State of California alone produces about 2% of the entire world's GHG emissions, with major emitting sources here including fossil fuel consumption from transportation (41 %), industry (23 %), electricity production (20 %), and agricultural and forestry (8 %). The State of California is looking at options and opportunities for drastically reducing GHG emissions with the hope of thereby delaying, mitigating, or preventing at least some of the anticipated impacts of GCC on California communities. in 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) completed a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the year 2007. According to that inventory, 102 million metric tons of CO were emitted in the Bay Area that year.' Air Quality Table 1 shows the emissions breakdown by pollutant. 3 California Energy Commission (CEC). California's Major Sources of Energy. http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov' overview 'energ;_sources.html, 2008. 4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory of B. y Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2008. PAGE 2 -8 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AIR QUALITY TABLE 1 2007 BAY AREA CO EMISSIONS BY POLLUTANT CO (_Million Metric Pollutant Percentage Tons /Year) Carbon Dioxide 91.4 93." Methane 2.4 2.5 Nitrous Oxide 2.2 2.3 13FC, PFC, SF6 3.9 4.0 Total 100 102.6 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. The Bay Area's transportation sector contributes 40% of the CO GHG emissions, followed by industrial and commercial sources (34 %), electricity and co- generation (15 %), residential fuel usage (7 %), off -road equipment (3 %), and agriculture and farming (1 %). Bay Area emissions by sector are illustrated in Air Quality Chart .1 Absent policy changes, Bay Area GHG emissions are expected to grow at a rate of 1.4% a year due to population growth and economic expansion.' Economic activity variations and the fraction of electric power generation in the region will cause year -to -year fluctuations in the emissions trends. Air Quality Chart shows the emission trends by major sources for the period of 1990 to 2029. 5 Ibid. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -9 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AIR QUALITY CHART 1 BAY AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EMISSIONS Agriculture Farmtng 1% ',.iff4,4g 4 , 11 : : :1211.111 # 31 ; P:4 *Nt-f,w31°11e*:4! ",<N, .A441940 '11":41,hil Resi den uai Fuel Usae Off-Road 7 Equipment 3% Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management Dittict, 2()08. AIR QUALITY CHART 2 BAY AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TRENDS BY SECTOR i60 o 140 E ;..20 ,g 100 A,gricurturc , 0 us t I F2 6 ,%•°=- 40 20 0 1990 1993 19% 1999 20-02 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017' 2020 .2023 2026 2029 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. PAGE 2-10 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South San Francisco In 2005, the City of South San Francisco emitted approximately 526,766 metric tons of CO As shown in Air Quality Table 2, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to GHG emissions, responsible for 46% of all emissions, with emissions from cars traveling on State highways within the city almost twice as much as emissions from cars traveling on city roads. This reflects the regional nature of trip making in South San Frarifisco and through - traffic through the city. The commercial /industrial sector accounts for approximately 35°, o of emissions, while the residential sector accounts for 13% of total emissions. Emissions from natural gas usage are higher than emissions from electricity usage for both the residential and commercial sectors. The waste sector accounts for 6% of total emissions. AIR QUALITY TABLE 2 2005 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY EMISSIONS 2005 GHG Emissions GIIG Emissions Sector' (CO2e) (% CO2e) Residential 70,059 13% E lectricity 22,258 4% Natural Gas 47,801 9% Commercial /Industrial 185,240 35% Electricity 80,723 15% Natural Gas 104,517 20% Transportation 240,257 46% Ci Roads (Non - Highway) 87,406 17% State Highways 152,851 29% Waste 31,210 6 % Solid Waste 31,210 6% Total 526,766 100% GHG Emissions Per Capita 8.5 1 ' Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICI.F,i, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD- ICLEI'X orkshop, December 6, 2007. 2. EPA WARM Model was used. Model accessed: http:// www .epa.gov /ciimatechange'wyYdiN' ast- /calculators, \X aw n Forrn.html, May 2009. Source: Dy ett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 2007; City of South San Francisco/ ICLEI, 2009. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -11 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Sensitive Receptors People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution within the general population include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include multi - family residences immediately adjacent to the north and west boundary of the Project site and El Camino High School, approximately 200 feet east of the north end of the Project site. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Criteria Pollutants The B_' .AQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and the 1988 California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs. Other BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparation of clean air plans, and responding to citizen air quality complaints. The B.AAQMD has also published CEQA AirQualip' Guidelines, June 2010, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. Greenhouse Gases Federal Regulations Global Change Research Act (1990) (15 United States Code Sections 2921 et seq.) In 1990, Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 101 -606, the Global Change Research Act. The purpose of the legislation was: "...to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions towards international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes." To that end, the Global Change Research Information Office ( GCRIO) was established in 1991 (it began formal operation in 1993) to serve as a clearinghouse of information. The Act requires a report to Congress every four years on the environmental, economic, health and safety consequences of climate change; however, the first and only one of these reports to -date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility for GCRIO shifted to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. PAGE 2 -12 1309 MISSION ROAD-- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non - renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can attain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel- efficient appliances and products. Driving fuel- efficient vehicles and installing energy-efficient appliances can provide many benefits, such as lower energy bills, increased indoor comfort, and reduced air pollution, therefore businesses are eligible for tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles, building energy efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are given for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microtutbine power plants, and solar power equipment. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) (549 U.S. 497) In this U.S. Supreme Court case, 12 states, three cities, and 13 environmental groups filed suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be required to regulate CO and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the EPA has a statutory authority to formulate standards and regulations to address GHG emissions, which it historically has not done. In April 2009, EPA released an Endangerment Finding that GHGs significantly contribute to air pollution, triggering the process under the Clean Air Act for potentially developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for GHGs and establishing emissions standards for stationary and mobile sources. Federal Fuel Efficiency Standards In December 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110 -140, at 42 USC Section 7545(o) (2)). This energy bill increased the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. It also tightened the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that regulate the average fuel economy in the vehicles produced by each major automaker, requiring that these standards be increased such that, by 2020, the new cars and light trucks sold each year deliver a combined fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. In mid -May 2009, President Barack Obama ordered vehicle makers to increase mileage standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than required by law. The nationwide fuel- economy standards would be phased in beginning in 2012. Rules are to be finalized by the end of March 2010. Carmakers had wanted a national standard, saying that meeting a quilt of state standards would be too difficult. The EPA in June 2009 approved California's rules to regulate GHG emissions from cars and light trucks, putting the standards into effect immediately for much of the nation and reversing a Bush administration policy. California had urged the EPA to allow the state's rules to go into effect immediately, arguing that the lengthy federal rulemaking process would delay action that could begin 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -13 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST immediately. California's rules apply beginning with the sale of 2009 model year cars, and extend to much of the nation, since 13 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted the California standard. In 2012, companies may comply with the national standard in place of the state standard. State Regulations California Public Utilities Commission r1_ a public utility that provides electricity and natural gas to the City, PG &E is under the jurisdiction of the CPUC. PG &E provides service in accordance within the policies and extensions rules on file with the CPUC. Senate Bill 1771 Sher (Chapter. 1018, Statutes of 2000) SB 1771 requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare an inventory of the state's GHG emissions, to study data on GHG, and to provide government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing GHG emissions. It also established the California Climate Action Registry to serve as a certifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG emissions for possible future trading systems. State of California Integrated Energy Policy (2002) The CEC adopts and transmits to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings biannually. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389 in 2002. The legislation reconstituted the state's responsibility to develop an integrated energy plan for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, known as the Energy Report. The CEC adopted the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy during a Special Business Meeting on November 12, 2003. The 2004 Update to the Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 3, 2004. The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 21, 2005. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicle and addressing their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VI\IT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access. Assembly Bill. 1493 (Chapter 200. Statutes of 2002) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) amended California Health & Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 requiring the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt, by Jannar• 1, 2005, regulations that achieve maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles, PAGE 2 -14 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION light -duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California. The regulations apply to motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 or later model year. Pursuant to AB 1493, the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles in September 2004. Under the regulation, one manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for passenger cars and the lightest trucks, and a separate manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for heavier trucks. The regulation took effect on January 1, 2006 and set near -term emission standards, phased in from 2009 through 2012, and mid -term emission standards, phased in from 2013 through 2016 (referred to as the Pavley Phase 1 rules). The ARB intends to extend the existing requirements to obtain further reductions in the 2017 to 2020 timeframe (referred to as Pavley Phase 2 rules). The ARB has included both Pavley 1 and 2 rules in its Climate Change Scoping Plan (December 2008), pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which outlines the State's strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission reductions. After initially refusing to grant a waiver, on June 30, 2009 the EPA granted a waiver that allows California to implement these standards. The ARB calculates that in calendar year 2016, the Pavley Phase 1 rules will reduce California's GHG emissions by 16.4 million metric tons of CO and by 2020, Pavley Phase 2 will reduce emissions by 31.7 million metric tons of CO Further, the AB 1493 new vehicle requirements will cumulatively produce 45°, o more GHG reductions by 2020 compared to the federal CAFE standard in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (above). Without Parley rules, both state and regional CO emissions will increase steadily between now and 2035 as V1AIT increases with population growth; with Pavley rules, CO emissions are projected to decrease between now and 2035. This decrease in regional 2035 CO emissions compared to current levels is in large part a result of technological changes expected to reduce CO emissions per VMT. The regulations will reduce climate change emissions from the light duty passenger vehicle fleet by 12.6% statewide and 22.9% in the Bay Area in the 2035 calendar year compared to 2006. Senate Bill 1078 Sher (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) The Sher bill established a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 10/ per year until they have attained a portfolio of 20% renewable resources by 2010. Executive Order S -20 -04 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, July 2004) Executive Order S- 20 -04, signed on July 27, 2004, requites that the State commit to aggressive action to reduce state building electricity use, and more specifically, that State agencies, depailiuents, and other entities take measures to reduce energy use by 20% by 2015. In addition, the Order requires that the CEC increase energy efficiency standards by 20% by 2015, compared to the 2003 Titles 20 and 24 standards. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -15 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Executive Order S -3 -05 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, June 2005) Executive Order S -3 -05, signed on June 1, 2005, recognizes California's vulnerability to climate change, noting that increasing temperatures could potentially reduce snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which is a primary source of the State's water supply. Additionally, according to this Order, climate change could influence human health, coastal habitats, m:icroclimates, and agricultural yield. The Order set the GHG reduction targets for California: by 2010, reduce GI-IG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020 reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050 reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2005) Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is the California Building Code, governing all aspects of building construction. Included in Part 6 of the Code are standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction, Since its establishment in 1977, the building efficiency standards (along with standards for energy efficiency in appliances) have contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas costs in California. The standards are updated every three years to allow new energy efficiency technologies to be considered. The latest update to Title 24 standards became effective on October 1, 2005. The standards regulate energy consumed in buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 is implemented through the local plan check and permit process. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 38500 et seq.) In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. seq.). The Act requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This change, which is estimated to be a 30% reduction from business as usual emission levels projected for 2020, will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. The Act also directs the ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources and address GHG emissions from vehicles. The ARB has stated that the regulatory requirements for stationary sources will be first applied to electricity power generation and utilities, petrochemical refining, cement manufacturing, and industrial /commercial combustion. The second group of target industries will include oil and gas production /distribution, transportation, landfills, and other GHG - intensive industrial processes. The ARB developed a Climate Change Scoping Plan, finalized in December 2008, outlining the State's strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission limits (CARB, 2008). The Plan proposes a comprehensive set of measures designed to reduce overall GHG emissions. These measures, shown below in Alt Quality Table 3 by sector, also put the State on a path to meet the long -term 2050 goal of reducing California's GI -IG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The measures will be developed over the next two years and be in place by 2012. PAGE 2 -16 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 LIST OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES BY SECTOR GHG Reductions (Annual Measure Million Metric No. Measure Description Tons CO Transportation T -1 Pavley I and II — Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 31.7 Standards T -2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Early Action) 15 T -3 Regional Transportation- Related Greenhouse Gas Targets 5 T -4 `Tehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 T -5 Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action) 0.2 T -6 Goods Movement Efficiency Measures. 3.5 • Ship Electrification at Ports • System -Wide Efficiency Improvements T -7 Heavy -Duty \Tehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction 0.93 Measure — Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action) T -8 Medium - and Heavy -Duty \Tehicle Hybridization 0.5 T -9 High Speed Rail 1 Electricity and Natural Gas E -1 Energy Efficiency (32,000 GWh of Reduced Demand) 15.2 • Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs • More Stringent Building & Appliance Standards Additional Efficiency and Conservation Progranris E -2 Increase Combined Heat and Power Use by 30,000 GWh 6.7 (Net reductions include avoided transmission line loss) E -3 Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3 E -4 Million Solar Roofs (including California Solar Initiative, 2.1 New Solar Homes Partnership and solar programs of publicly owned utilities) = Target of 3000 MW Total Installation by 2020 CR -1 Energy Efficiency (800 Million Therms Reduced 4.3 Consumptions) • Utility Energy Efficiency Programs • Building and Appliance Standards • Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs CR -2 Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal) 0.1 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -17 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST G HG Reductions (Annual Measure Million Metric Na. Measure Description Tons CO 1 Green Buildings GB - 1 Green Buildings 26 Water ' 1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4t W -2 Water Recycling 0.3t W -3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0j W -4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2t W -5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9t W -6 Public Goods Charge (Water) TBD f Industry I - Energy Efficiency and Co- Benefits Audits for Large TBD Industrial Sources I -2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I - GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I -4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 1-5 R emov al of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery 0.01 Regulations Recycling: and Water Management RW 1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1 RW -2 Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane TBDt • Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture RW -3 High Recycling /Zero Water 9 t • Commercial Recycling • Increase Production and Markets for Compost: • Anaerobic Digestion • Extended Producer Responsibility • Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Forests F - Sustainable Forest Target 5 High Global Warning Potential (G1 % "P) Gases _.�._�. H - Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction o 0.26 Refrigerant Emissions from Non - Professional Services (Discrete Early Action) PAGE 2 -18 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST GHG Reductions (Annual Measure Million Metric No. Measure Description Tons CO Greed Buildings GB - 1 Green Buildings 26 Water W -1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4t W -2 Water Recycling 0.3.1- W- 3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0j- W -4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2 W -5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9f W-6 Public Goods Charge (Water) TBDt Industry I - Energy Efficiency and Co- Benefits Audits for Large 1BD Industrial Sources I - Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I -3 GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I -4 Refiner3 Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 I - Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery 0.01 Regulations Recycling and Water Management RW -1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1 RW - Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane "1'BD f • Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Ca RW -3 High Recycling /Zero Water 9� • Commercial Recycling • Increase Production and Markets for Compost • Anaerobic Digestion • Extended Producer Responsibility • Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Forests F - 1 Sustainable Forest Target 5 High Global Warming Potential ((1WP.) Gases H -1 Motor Vehi cle Air Cond Systems: Reduction o 0.26 R efrig erant Emissions from Non - Professional Services (Discrete Early Action) PAGE 2 -18 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION MIN111111=0111■11111! GHG n a Measure Million Metric s tri No. Measure Description Tons CO e) H-2 SF Limits in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor 0.3 Applications (Discrete Early Action) H-3 Reduction of Perfluorocarbons in Semiconductor 0.15 Manufacturing (Discrete Early Action) H-4 Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products Discrete Early 0.25 Action (Adopted June 2008) H-5 High GNXT Reductions from Mobile Motor Air Jr 3.3 • Low G\XT Refrigerants for New 1\ otor N Conditioning Systems • Air Conditioner Refrigerant Leak Test During Vehicle Smog Check • Refrigerant Recovery from Decommissioned Refrigerated Shipping Containers • Enforcement of Federal Ban on Refrigerant Release during Servicing or Dismantling of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems H-6 High GWP Reductions from Stationary Sources 10.9 • High GWP Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program: o Refrigerant Tracking/Reporting/Repair Deposit Program o Specifications for Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Systems • Foam Recovery and Destruction Pro gr • SF Leak Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Applications • Alternative Suppressants in Fire Protection Systems • Residential Refrigeration Early Retirement Program H-7 Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases 5 Agriculture A-1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1.0t 1 This is not the SB 375 regional target. GARB wili establish regional targets for each of California's 18 following Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's) regions o g the input of the regional targets advisory committee and a consultation process with MPO's and other stakeholders per SI3 375 GHG emission reduction estimates are not included in calculating ting the total reductions needed to meet the 2020 target 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITtAl. STUDY PAGE 2-19 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Senate Bill 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) (Calif. Public Utilities Code Sections 8340 et seq.) Senate Bill (SB) 1368 required the CPUC to establish a GHG emissions performance standard for "baseload" generation from investor -owned utilities by February 1, 2007. The CEC was required to establish a similar standard for local publicly -owned utilities by June 30, 2007, The legislation further required that all electricity prodded to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet or exceed the standards set by the CPUC and the CEC. In January 2007, the CPUC adopted an interim performance standard for new long -term commitments (1,100 pounds of CO per megawatt - hour), and in May 2007, the CEC approved regulations that match the CPUC standard, Executive Order S -01 -07 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, January 2007) A Low - Carbon Fuel Standard was established by Executive Order S -01 -07 in January 2007. The Order calls for a statewide goal to be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020 ( "2020 Target "), and that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California. Further, it directed the ARB to determine if an LCFS could be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32, and if so, ARB was required to consider the adoption of a LCFS on the list of early action measures required to be identified by June 30, 2007, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5 (see Table AQ -3; Measure T -2). The LCFS applies to all refiners, blenders, producers or importers ( "Providers ") of transportation fuels in California, and will be measured on a full fuels cycle basis, and may be met through market -based methods by which Providers exceeding the performance required by a LCFS shall receive credits that may be applied to future obligations if traded to Providers not meeting the LCFS. Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007) (Calif Public Resources Code Sections 21083.5 and 21097) Senate Bill (SB) 97 directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California Resources Agency guidelines for feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt amendments to the Guidelines implementing the CEQA Guidelines on or before January 1, 2010. OPR submitted recommended Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions to the Natural Resources Agency on April 13, 2009 (OPR, 2010). On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulernaking process for certifying and adopting these amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on December 31, 2009. The Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations on February 16, 2010. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010 (OPR, 2010). PAGE 2 -20 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2' ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 375 into law. SB375 links transportation and land use planning with the CEQA process to help achieve the GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Regional transportation planning agencies are required to include a sustainable community strategy (SCS) in regional transportation plans. The SCS must contain a planned growth scenario that is integrated with the transportation network and policies in such a way that it is feasible to achieve AB 32 goals on a regional level. SB 375 also identifies new CEQA exemptions and streamlining for projects that are consistent with the SCS and qualify as Transportation Priority Projects (1PP). TPPs must meet three requirements: 1) contain at least 50% residential use; commercial use must have floor area ratio (FAR) of not less than 0.75; 2) have a minimum net density of 20 units per acre; and 3) be located within one -half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor included in the regional transportation plan. Executive Order S -14 -08 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, November 2008) Executive Order S- 14-04, signed on November 17, 2008, mandates a RPS of 33% by 2020. Regional Coordination In the Bay Area, the Joint Policy Committee QPC) coordinates the regional planning efforts of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the BAAQMD, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com mission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The JPC commenced a six -month program to study the issue of climate change and to recommend an initial set of actions to be pursued jointly by the four regional agencies in the fall of 2006. The study recommends that the regional agencies build their Joint Climate Protection Strategy in service of this key goal: To be a model for California, the nation, and the world. The JPC then organizes initial actions by the following six strategy elements: establish priorities; increase public awareness and motivate action; provide assistance; reduce unnecessary driving; prepare to adapt; and break old habits. The region plans to invest $400 million towards a five -year Transportation Climate Action Campaign aimed at smart traveling and smart driving. The investment is an effort to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector as part of the proposed investments in the Transportation 2035 Plan. The action campaign, to be implemented by the four regional agencies, focuses on outreach /education, Safe Routes to Schools, Safe Routes to Transit, transit priority measures (IPMs) for local bus transit, and grants /incentive programs. City of South San Francisco Regulations The City of South San Francisco does not currently have any adopted policies or plans regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City participated in a training workshop held by BAAQMD and ICLEI on community GHG emission inventories in December 2007 to begin the process of 1309 MISSION ROAD — INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -21 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST conducting a government and community= -wide GHG emissions baseline inventory. South San Francisco is currently in the process of completing the baseline inventory. Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.40() of the Municipal Code) South San Francisco's current Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance states that for non - residential sites generating more than 100 daily trips, a minimum of 28% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use. For projects that seek a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus in accordance with the General Plan, 30% to 40% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use, depending on the type of development and requested FAR. CURRENT AIR QUALITY The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six criteria pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the project site is in San Francisco on Atkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone, particulate matter in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide). Air Quality Table 4 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by CARB for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately seven miles to the north - northeast of the Project site. The State 24 -hour PM10 standard was exceeded three times in 2006 and two times in 2007. The federal 24 -hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded three tunes in 2006 and five times in 2007. No other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded during the three year period. PAGE 2 -22 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AIR QUALITY TABLE 4 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2006 - 2008 Pollutant Standard 1 _ Days Standard Exceeded • 2006 T 2007 2008 Ozone State 1 —Hour 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8 —Hour 0 0 0 Ozone State 8 —Hour 0 0 0 PM10 Federal 24 —Hour 0 0 0 PM10 State 24 —Hour 3 2 0 PM2.5 Federal 24 —Hour 3 5 0 Carbon Monoxide State /Federal 0 0 0 8 —Hour Nitrogen Dioxide State 1 —Hour 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide State 24 Hour I 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2010. The Bay Area is currently designated "nonattainment" for State and national (1 -hour and 8 -hour) ozone standards and for the State PM10 and PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is expected to soon be officially designated nonattainment with respect to the national Ph12.5 24 -hour standard. The Bay Area is designated "attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. IMPACTS a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment, or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled (GMT). The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the State particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards. The 2001 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan have been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues as required by federal and State air quality laws. Additionally, the B.AAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -23 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST plan describes the Bay Area's strategy for compliance with State one -hour ozone standard planning requirements and to improve air quality in the region and reduce transport to neighboring air. basins. The strategy includes stationary source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with h1TC, local governments, transit agencies, and others. No PMI0 plan has been prepared nor is one currently required under State air quality planning law. The growth assumptions used for regional air quality plans are based upon the growth assumptions provided in local general plans. The Project is consistent with, but less intense than, the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment (ECRRP Amendment) and the associated 2000 ECREIR envisioned. Said documents envisioned approximately 12,000 square feet more commercial and 18,000 square feet more office development on the site. As mentioned above, the growth assumptions used for the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy are based upon the growth assumptions provided in local general and development plans, such as the ECRRP Amendment. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the assumptions used to development the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and there would be no impactregarding consistency with the applicable air quality plan. b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD's operational mass emission rate thresholds or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard ('including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for criteria pollutants). The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that for any project that does not individually have significant air quality impacts, the determination of a significant cumulative impact can be based on consistency of the project with the local general plan and the regional air quality plan. The Project, as demonstrated above under a, would result in no impacts associated with consistency with the adopted clean air plan and the Project would not conflict with the ECRRP Amendment. Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable. Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. BA.AQl\ID rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of projects. BAAQMD regulations applicable to the construction of the project relate to portable equipment (e.g., gasoline - or diesel- powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fugitive dust, and paving materials. Project construction and operation impacts are discussed below. PAGE 2 -24 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Construction Related Impacts Project- related construction activities would include site preparation, earthrnoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut and fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes activities associated with construction of buildings and other facilities such as parking lots, placement of utilities, etc. The emissions generated from these construction activities include dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from "fugitive" sources. Fugitive dust could cause or contribute to exceedances of the State PM10 standard during project construction. Project construction is anticipated to span approximately ten months and would generate short -term emissions of criteria pollutants, including particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The newly adopted BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction- related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to new significance thresholds. Quantification of exhaust emissions and comparison of the exhaust emissions to the new thresholds to determine the significance of exhaust emissions is recommended in addition to the identification of the BAAQMD dust control measures to ensure less than significant impacts for fugitive dust. Therefore, this analysis includes quantification of construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD's new construction significance thresholds. The URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 model was used to quantify project construction emissions of criteria pollutants (see Appendix A for emissions estimate assumptions). Air Quality Table 5 provides the estimated short -term operational emissions that would be associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the BAAQMD's new thresholds for construction exhaust emissions. Total construction emissions would be well below the BAAQMI)'s new significance thresholds. Therefore, Project impacts that would be associated with construction related exhaust emissions would be less than significant AIR QUALITY TABLE 5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Total Construction Emissions 32.44 26.88 1.55 1.42 15.76 Significance Thresholds* 54 54 82 54 - -- Significant Impact? No No No No No Notes: Refer to appendix A for all assumptions used as input to the URBEMIS200" model. *BAAQMD revised significance thresholds adopted by the BAAQMD Board on June 2, 2010. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -25 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that a project's construction- related fugitive dust impacts be identified as less than significant when BAAQMD recommended dust control measures would be implemented. The City of South San Francisco has required BAAQMD measures to be implemented into Project construction as a matter of law (see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.21 Therefore, construction impacts related to fugitive dust would be less than signi &cant. Long -Tenn Operational Impacts Long -term emissions would be associated with vehicle use and area sources, such as natural gas usage for space and water heating, landscape maintenance, etc. The Project is estimated to generate approximately 181 average daily trips based upon condorninium /townhouse and office park uses. The URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 model was used to quantify Project emissions of criteria pollutants (see AppendixA for emissions estimate assumptions). Air Quality Table 6provides the estimated long -term operational emissions that would be associated with the Project. AIR QUALITY TABLE 6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Emission ROG NOx PM1O! I PM2.5 CO Sources Area Sources' 3.99 0.43 1.64 1.58 10.48 Mobile Sources 1.44 2.33 2.64 0.5 17.21 Total 5.43 2.76 4.28 2.08 27.69 Significance 54 54 82 54 — Thresholds Significant No Impact? I No No No No 'Area sources include natural gas combustion, landscaping, and architectural coating applications. Notes: Refer to Appendix AQ for all assumptions used as input to the URBEMIS2007 model. bBAAQMO revised significance thresholds adopted by the BAAQMD Board on June 2, 2010. Total operational emissions would be well below the BAAQMD's new significance thresholds. The BAAQMD has also determined that if project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal mixing is substantially limited, local carbon monoxide concentrations should be analyzed to determine whether project emissions would result in violation of the 1 -hour or 8 -hour standards for carbon monoxide. The Project would result in an increase of up to 181 trips per day, which would result in PAGE 2 -26 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION a negligible increase to Project - related vehicles per hour (i.e., 18 trips per hour at most as compared to the BAAQMD threshold of 24,000). Therefore, impacts that would be associated with long -term operational exhaust emissions would be less than significant. d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant impact if it were to expose people in the area to concentrations of toxic air contaminants or criteria air pollutants for an extended duration (i.e., 24 hour exposure) and for an extend time (i.e., less than 10 years). The proposed use of the site, 20 residential dwellings, and 5,200 square feet of retail and potentially office uses would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants. As discussed in Hazards Section 27, use of toxic materials on the site in excess of gasoline and., diesel for vehicles and landscaping equipment would not expose people to hazardous concentrations of pollutants. Moreover, the as shown in the above discussions, criteria pollutants associated with construction and operation of the Project would be below BAAQMD thresholds. Construction emissions would generate minor amounts of toxic air contaminants (TACs) by the use of diesel fueled construction equipment. Diesel emissions can be carcinogenic over long exposure durations (i.e., typical time periods analyzed include 10, 30 and 70 year exposures). However, nearby receptors would be exposed to construction emissions for a short period of approximately 10 months and limited to daytime construction hours (i.e., not a 24 -hour exposure). Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors would be Less than significant. e) Odor Impacts Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact based upon specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. During construction, various diesel- powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and intermittent and not likely to be noticeable beyond the Project boundaries. The operation of residential, retail, and office uses would not be anticipated to result in offensive odor emissions, which are typically associated with industrial land uses. The impact of the Project with regard to odors would be less than significant f and g) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Significance Criteria: The Legislature directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA Guidelines pertaining to GHG emissions by July 1, 2009, and to adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010. OPR submitted recommended Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions to the Natural Resources Agency on April 13, 2009 (OPR, 2010). On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.05. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on December 31, 2009. The Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments on February 16, 2010, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -27 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 (OPR, 2010). Therefore, checklist items f), and g) of this Initial Study, are OPR's new guidelines for analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The BAAQMD has adopted revised BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that identify quantitative thresholds for GHG. The recommended significance threshold is 1,100 metric tons of CO per year for projects other than stationary sources, such as the Project. This analysis includes quantification of Project related GHG emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD's proposed significance threshold. The Project would also be considered to have a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. The State has taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed to determine if it would conflict with the goals of AB 32. Four types of analyses are used to determining whether the project could conflict with the State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The analyses are as follows: A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB's thirty -nine (39) recommended actions (see Air Quality Table .3). B. The amount of annual operational emissions generated by the Project. The Project's GHG emissions are compared to the BAAQMD's new operational significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year (mt /y). Projects with total emissions below 1,100 rrit /y would be assumed not conflict with State's ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. The Project's emissions are also compared to the estimated GHG reduction state goal of 174 million metric tons per year of CO emissions by 2020. C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient. D. Any potential conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Impact Analysis The Project is located in the City of South San Francisco, California. The Project site is 0.41 acre and is currently undev eloped. The Applicant has proposed to develop the property with 20 residential dwellings and 5,200 square feet of retail and office uses. Individual and relatively small projects, (i.e., projects that are not cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating facilities /providers, co- generation facilities, or hydrogen plants), are not typically associated with impacts on GCC (Association of Environmental Professionals, 2007, Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents). The specific emissions from the Project would not be expected to individually have an impact on GCC. Furthermore, GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non - cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act). PAGE 2 -28 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Item A: the Project does not pose any apparent conflict with the CARB recommended actions (see Air Quality Table 3). Item B: Project operations would generate approximately 344 metnc tons per year of CO (including emissions from vehicle trips, space heating, and indirect emissions from the use of electricity). Project short -term construction GHG emissions occurring over a ten - month period would be approximately 130 metric tons of CO Project operational emissions would be less than one -third of the B AAQMD new significance threshold, which is 1,100 metric tons per year of CO Compared to the overall State reduction goal of approximately 174 million metric tons per year of CO the maximum GHG emissions for the Project, 344 metric tons per year of CO or 0.0002 percent of the State goal, are quite small and would not conflict with the State's ability to meet the AB 32 goals. Item C: The Project would be relatively energy efficient because it would include solar electric power, on- demand water heating, structured plumbing with re- circulating pumps, a thermally wrapped building envelope, energy star appliances, low e- windows, water saving fixtures, and additional building insulation. Other sustainable elements of the Project design would include radiant roof barriers, solar window shading and optional cork and bamboo flooring, whole house vacuums, indoor air exchange, and wheatboard frame cabinetry. Also, one characteristic of mixed uses, such as the Project, is that they can reduce trip lengths for residents, patrons and workers that would otherwise have to travel further to meet their needs. Thus, in some cases the new uses would certainly reduce trip lengths and GHG emissions associated with longer trips. Additionally, the location of the Project has the potential to minimize GHG emissions related to transportation due to its proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station, directly across the street. Project residents would have a convenient BART commute that could transport them to jobs throughout the Bay Area. In summary, the Project can accurately be described as inherently energy efficient. Itcm D: The City of South San Francisco currently does not have any adopted policy or plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City is currently in the process of establishing a baseline government and community -wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. The review of Items A, B, C, and D indicates that the Project would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32 or any applicable plans, and therefore, this impact would be less than significant Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality including greenhouse gasses and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non - attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM -10). The City's building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as dust control measures. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to air quality with respect to GGE and GCC. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -29 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly x or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any x riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally x protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any x native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances x protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted x Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? SETTING The Project would be located on a flat infill site surrounded by high density mixed use residential, commercial, cemetery, school and transportation land uses. The site was previously graded, contains no wetlands or vegetation save for one shrub bush and weeds (site visit, General Plan Background Report). The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any biological issues in the redevelopment plan area. PAGE 2 -30 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Regulatory Framework South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 Protected Tree Ordinance South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a circumference of 48" or more measures 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, itnportance to the public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependant on the others for survival. California Department of Fish and Game Nesting birds are protected by the California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads, "It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto." Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 U.S.C., Section 703 -71) There are over 900 species of birds protected by the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment. The MBTA is typically enforced by the California Department Fish and Game. A standard requirement is to either conduct tree and building removal during the non - nesting season which in San Mateo County is September 1- January 31 or conduct a nesting survey within five days prior to tree removal and should nests be found they are required to be protected in place until the birds ha`, e fledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and based upon the type of bird species identified by the biological study, v arious setbacks during project construction (including grading and tree removal) would be required until the birds have fledged. IMPACTS a -d) Habitat Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact: if it were to substantially impact habitat, wetlands, migratory corridors and Waters of the United States as identified in 3.4 a -d, above. Suitable habitat requires the presence of vegetation for cover and food and a source of water. Suitable wildlife habitat is located approximately 0.75 miles north and northeast of the Project site in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park. The Project site itself is void of vegetation and water suitable for wildlife habitat. The Cohna Creek channel is located approximately 40 feet west of the Project site with the parcel owned by SamTrans providing the 40 feet of separation. The top of the concrete channel is approximately four feet below finish grade of the Project site. The Project proposes passive outdoor uses, such as landscaping and open space on the SamTrans parcel which would not impact the channel or its potential for migratory habitat. Both the Project site and the Intervening parcel were previously graded and the Project site itself contains no wetlands or vegetation except one shrub bush and 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -31 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST some weeds. The proximity of suitable habitat (San Bruno Mountain) within 0.75 miles of the site further renders the habitat value of the Project site as insignificant. The Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. e) and f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Comrumunit • Consers ation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There are no Protected Trees on the site. There is no Habitat or Conservation Plan that governs the site, as the site does not contain habitat. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands, does not contain habitat and -would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the x significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique x paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those x interred outside of formal cemeteries? SETTING The 2000 ECREIR conducted a cultural resources review. The Project site was not found to have the potential for archaeological or cultural resources to be present. PAGE 2 -32 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Historical and cultural resources were noted in the ECRRP area south of the Project site. Historical resources were noted on the McLellan nursery site and were mitigated as part of the Promenade and Greenridge project, which is not a part of this Project. An archaeological site (CA -SMA -299) was noted on BART properties south of the Project site. C.A. -SMA -299 was discussed in the EIR /EIS for the BART -San Francisco Airport Extension (1999), for the adoption of the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (1993) and for the 2000 Plan Amendment. CA-SMA-299 was noted to be "completely destroy ed ". During the 2000 Plan Amendment further evidence indicated that a portion of CA -SMA -299 could be located on the California dater Site (now known as Chestnut Creek Housing). Additional review in the Chestnut Creek area was conducted prior to construction of housing deli elopment. The Chestnut Creek site is approximately a mile south of the Project site. In summary, no historical and cultural resources have been identified on the Project site. IMPACTS a) Historic Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. There are no historical resources or structures on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. b - d) Archaeological Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. The site is not known or suspected to contain cultural resources, based upon literature searches, previous EIR's and grading. Moreover, the 34 foot deep borings and soil taken as part of the geotechnical study (Geotechnical Investigation 1/4 Acre Parcel, McLellan Drive and Mission Road, South San Francisco, California. April 6, 2009, Berloger Geotechnical Consultants) did not contain archaeological soils (i.e., shell bits associated with previous habitation associated with Native Americans). Finding: The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. There are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within 1.0 miles of the Project site based upon existing data including literature searches, soil borings taken to a depth of 34 feet and grading. The Project would have a no impact on cultural resources. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -33 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in X Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Cade (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting X the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? SETTING Geotechnical investigation was performed as part of the Project application, as required by law ( Geotechnical Investigation 1/2 acre parcel McClellan Drive and Mission Road South San Francisco, California, Berloger Geotechnical Consultants, April. 6, 2007 and Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendation Proposed Multi -Unit Residential and Retail Building 1309 Mission Road South San Francisco, California, Lai & Associates, August 2, 2010). Peer review was conducted by Cotton Shires Associates, Inc. the City's geotechnical consultants (Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Metron Partnership - Proposed Multi -Unit Residential and Retail Structure, 1309 Mission Road, August 18, 2010). PAGE 2 -34 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The purpose of the City's geotechnical peer review is to insure that all geotechnical mitigations are included as part of the Project. Therefore, the recommendations of Cotton Shires will become requirements of the Project as well as those identified by the Applicant's consultants as reviewed and approved by Cotton Shires. This Project, should it be approved, will be required to comply with the Consulting and project Geotechnical Consultants recommendations prior to issuance of building or grading permits, just as other projects are so required in the City. The Project site is part of the Coast Range geomorphic province and underlain by the Colma Formation. Two soil borings were conducted (Berloger, 2007) on March 13, 2007 to depths of 34.5 and 20.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Boring B -1 found approximately 11.5 feet of undocumented fill composed of mostly silty and clayey sand, sandy clay, and clayey sand and sandy clay mixture was found. The upper three feet of the fill is stiff to very stiff and dense while the lower portion of the fill is medium dense to loose. Approximately seven feet medium dense silty sand over about five feet black, medium stiff sandy clay over Colma Formation of light gray to gray brown medium dense to very dense granular soils to approximately 34.5 feet bgs was found under the fill. Boring B -2 found nine feet of undocumented fill with the upper three feet being dense and hard and the remaining six feet being soft and loose. The fill consists primarily of silty sand and sandy clay over clayey sand and sandy clay mixture. The undocumented fill is underlain by four feet of dark- gray, loose silty sand over the Colma Formation of light gray to gray- brown, medium dense to very dense to approximately 20.5 feet bgs. Four additional borings (Lai Associates, 2010) were conducted at the requested of Cotton Shires (Shires, 2010). The borings were drilled 20 to 49.5 feet bgs. The findings are similar to those of the Berloger borings. The Colma Formation is found to depths ranging from 13 to 27 feet bgs. Free water was found in one boring at a depth of 17 feet. The risk of liquefaction is considered low. Ground subsidence is considered to be less than 0.1 inch. As a result, the below grade parking slab could be structurally tied to the grade beams and footings. The garage slab would be supported by a minimum of four inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate base over compacted subgrade. Piers would be drilled (not driven) in place or as an alternative the building can be supported on a shallow footing foundation (Lai, 2010). As required by law, the recommendations of the geotechnical reports (Berloger, 2007 and Lai, 2010) shall be part of the Project as reviewed and approved by Cotton Shires (2010). 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -35 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IMPACTS Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. i) Surface Fault Rupture Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. The site is not underlain by active earthquake fault. The San Andreas and San Gregorio faults lie approximately two and six miles, respectively, west of the site. The Hayward fault is approximately 17 miles east of the site. The Calavaras fault is approximately 26 miles east of the site. The Monte Vista fault is approximately 19 miles southeast and the Rodgers Creek fault is approximately 30 miles north of the site. There would be a less than significant impact to the Project associated with ground rupture. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, damage from a seismic event is most likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic ground shaking originating on a nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a particular location are made according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercaili Intensity estimates indicate that earthquake - shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates. For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE) along the nearby San Andreas and San Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 7.9 and 7.2, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX, "violent" and VIII, "v ery strong ", respectively, at the Project site. Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. The Project and all buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built with the knowledge that an earthquake could occur, and are required to meet Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards for seismic safety. Conformance with the 2007 California Building Code would ensure that the impact of seismic ground - shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. The following design parameter would be used in the structural design of the building: Site latitude 37.66548 degrees; site PAGE 2 -36 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER'. 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION longitude - 122.44527 degrees; site class D; mapped spectral acceleration for short periods (S 2.117g; and mapped spectral acceleration for one - second period (S1) 1.169g. iii) Liquefaction Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless sand and silty sand sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic loading. During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can move both horizontally and vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly - graded, fine- grained sands. The project site is underlain by Colma Formation and based upon the borings and soil testing the chances of liquefaction are low (Lai, 2010 and Cotton Shires, 2010) Therefore, the Project would have no impact with respect to liquefaction of subsurface materials. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates that the Project Site is "flatland," (Association of Bay Area Governments, http: / /gis.abag.ca.gov /website /Landslides /viewer.htm). The Geotechnical Report and site inspections identify the site as relatively flat. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the project would have no impact with respect to landslides. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. In absence of the NPDES C -3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during construction. This is described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, below. However, the erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -37 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST c) Geologic Instability Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Ground subsidence is considered to be less than 0.1 inch (Lai, 2010). Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to a geologic unit becoming unstable as a result of the Project and the Project would not result in the potential for on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical reports and peer review (Berloger, Lai and Cotton Shires) did not identify a potential hazard from expansive soils or the presence of expansive soils. The Plasticity Index of site soils suitable for fill is les than 15 (low expansion). Moreover, import soils for fill shall also have a Plasticity Index of 15. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive soils. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The Project site will be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system as a requirement of general engineering conditions of approval. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems. Finding: The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and as such the potential for ground rupture is very low. Conformance with the 2007 California Building Code would reduce seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. The site soils are not expansive with a Plasticity Index of 15. Site soils are considered low impact with respect liquefaction. Subsidence would be approximately 0.1 inch which is considered low. The Project would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground failure. The site is flat and not subject to landsliding. Based on the analysis, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to Geology and Soils. PAGE 2 -38 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant Na Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list x of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere x with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? SETTING A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project (Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 1309 Missi ©n Road, South San Francisco, CA 94080. AEI, May 24, 2010) (Phase I). The Phase I is incorporated herein by reference. The Phase I was conducted pursuant to the guidelines 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -39 CHAPTER 2; ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST established by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527 -05, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I En irontnental Site Assessment Process" and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All appropriate Inquiries (40CFR, Part 312) . The Phase I notes that the Project site has been undeveloped since 1946 based upon aerial photographs. The Project site is not identified on any regulatory data base listings. No on -site environmental conditions were identified, no on -site historical environmental conditions were identified and no on -site environmental issues were identified as a result of the Phase I discovery process. The property to the southeast of the site is identified on a regulatory database as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site and a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) small quantity generator site. Groundwater beneath the Project site flows to the southeast at a depth ranging from 30 to 44 feet below ground surface (bgs). IMPACTS a) and b) Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to 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. The Project would support a mixed use residential, retail, commercial and potentially office land use. These types of land uses are not associated with moderate or heavy hazardous materials use. Residential and commercial land uses typically use gasoline and diesel for vehicles and gardening equipment; not the use of toxic and hazardous materials associated with heavy commercial and industrial land uses. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment did not identify any environmental concerns (i.e., no identification of contamination or the presence of hazardous or toxic materials) with respect to the site. The South San Francisco Fire Department, the City's lead division far hazardous materials, did not identify any concerns with respect to the Project. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials transport or spill would be less than signtificant c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence Significance Criter The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if it was located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ( "Cortese List "). PAGE 2 -40 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The El Camino High School is east of the Project site on Mission Road just south of the intersection of Mission Road and McLellan Drive. The Project site is not identified on a hazardous materials database _(Phase I). Handling of hazardous materials on the Project site, identified above, would be minimal and similar to that of the high school. The Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Cortese List (California Department of Toxic Substance Control, http: / /www.dtsc.ca.gov/ database /Calsites /Cortese Listcfm and Phase I). Therefore, the Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by sites listed on the Cortese List. The Project would have no impact with regards to the presence or release of hazardous materials or waste within a quarter mile of a school. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project site is located approximately four miles northwest of San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC alloy development within ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. In 1981, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 361 -foot height limit for properties adjacent to the Project area and a Transitional Surface Slope of 7:1 for the Project site. (Airport Related Height Limitations, Figure 2 -2, General Plan, page 34). Using the more conservative height limit of 361 feet, the ALUC height limit is 281 feet above the maximum of 80 feet permitted by the City's General Plan (Special Area Height Limitations, Figure 2 -3, 1999 General Plan, page 35) and 306 feet above the requested 50 foot height limit. The Project would be 306 feet below that established by the ALUC as requisite to protect public safety and would not result in a safety hazard for people working or living at the Project site. The Project would have no impactwith respect to height limitations due to a nearby airport. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the proposed Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 1309 MISSION ROAD — INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -41 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant en'-ironmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project site is neither within a wildland fire management area (Fire Hazard Management Units, Figure 8 -4, General Plan, 1999, page 265) nor at an urban /wildland interface zone. The Project would have no impact on fighting wildland fires. Finding The Project site is appropriate for miffed use residential and commercial land use. The Project would not introduce a fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normally anticipated with mixed use residential and commercial :!and use; would not expose a school to the risk from hazardous materials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact from hazardous materials exposure. The Project would not impede emergency response. PAGE 2 -42 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste x discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or x interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g,, the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern x of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern x of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would x exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard x area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area X structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk x of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -43 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SETTING Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in. the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain ridges that diverge toward the southeast that are connected by a low ridge at the northern boundary of the area. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay. The City, in 2005, completed channelization of the entire creek within South San Francisco from the Town of Coltna boundary to South Airport Boulevard. The flood maps have not been updated to represent these improvements; however, the City is in the process of doing so. The greatest portion of the creek is designed to a fifty year flood with a two foot freeboard. According to the City's Public Works Director, the BART station, just upstream of the station, under it, and on the exit side the creek has been designed to a 500 year flood (June, 2010). The Project site is currently undeveloped and conditions of project approval (Chapter 1, Section L3.4, Hydrology and Water Quality) would require the Project to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm filtration, retention and drainage requirements (see Regulatory Framework, below). Regulatory Framework National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit The City of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City /County Association of Governments (C /CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. STOPPP's goal is to :prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new development and cons ruction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval. The City requires the implementation of BMP's to ensure the protection of water quality in storm runoff from the project site. In brief, the measures presented in the BMP handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training, etc. The handbook also provides direction for the control of erosion and sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness of the BMP's. The City also requires an agreement with the applicant that ensures the permanent and on -going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the applicant and /or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay Area Stotni Water Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection (available from BASMAA @ 510 622 - 2465 for a comprehensive listing of required measures. Typical storm water quality protection measures are identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.4 of this document. PAGE 2 -44 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION State Water Quality Control Board's General Permitting Requirements The City of South San Francisco requires through conditions of project approval, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which require the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm 'Water General Permit, complete a Notice. of Intent (NOl) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOT and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, prior to issuance of building and /or grading permits. IMPACTS a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The City requires the implementation of BMP's for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works Department (see Chapter 13.4, Hydrology and Water Quality). The Project would present a less than significant impact with respect to violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project would increase impervious surfaces on the site, but would result in approximately 50% more pervious area on the site than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. As noted in Chapter 1, Project Description, approximately half of the area (.34 acre) of the site in 2000 is now owned by SamTrans and is undeveloped. The Project site itself would include landscape areas that allow for water percolation. The Project would not draw its water source from groundwater but from California Water Service. The Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to groundwater depletion and would be an improvement over the conditions anticipated and analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. c and d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns /Erosion and Siltation Effects or Alter Existing Drainage Patterns /Flooding Effects Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were 1309 MISSION ROAD– INITIAL STUDY — PAGE 2-45 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site. The Project would be required to incorporate BMP's into construction and design of the site and as such would not alter drainage patterns or cause siltation into the adjacent channelized Colma Creek. Incorporation of BMP's would improve the site over existing conditions as currently there are no BMP's employed on the site. There would be no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site as compared to the 2000 ECREIR. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity /Increase Polluted Runoff Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWXTPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Qualit<' Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP as noted in the Setting Section, above, and Chapter 1, Section 1.3.4 is required to include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control Division conducts routine inspections of this and all project sites to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project will as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the measures required as a matter of law would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The Project would improve water quality over existing conditions in that BMP's would be required to filter, contain and direct water. Therefore, as.compared to existing conditions, there would be no impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site. g — i) Flood Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 100 -year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. PAGE 2 -46 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Project site is located in Flood Zone C (Federal Emergency Mapping Act Map (FEMA) Panel Number 065062 0008 B, September 2, 1981) which means that the site is not located in a 100 -year flood hazard zone. The Project site is adjacent to Flood Zone AH on the western side (the Sam Trans Parcel), which indicates minimal flooding one to three feet above flood elevation. The Colma Creek channel is Flood Zone A which is the 100 year flood zone. The City completed channelization of the creek in 2005. As a result, the greatest portion of the creek is designed to a fifty year flood with a two foot freeboard. The :area of the BART station, upstream of it, under it and on the exit side is designed to a 500 year flood zone. (Terry White, Public Works Director. June 2010). The FEMA Map has not been amended to reflect the flood hazard improvements as a result of the City's channelizing the creek in 2005. As a result, potential impacts associated with flooding are overstated. The Project would have no impact related to the placement of people or structures in a flood hazard area, the exposure of people or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows beyond that identified in the 2000 ECREIR. (ABA G, http: / /ww .abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps ). j) Tsunami Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The City's General Plan estimates that potential wave run -up of a 100 -year tsunami would be approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a 500 - year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page 250). The Project site is not located in a low -lying area near San Francisco Bay where an earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) that could impact the Project site. The Project site is at an elevation of approximately 100 feet above msl (Geotechnical Investigation 1/4 Acre Parcel, McLellan Drive and Mission Road, South San Francisco, California. April 6, 2009, Berloger Geotechnical Consultants) and would be too high for inundation by a 500 -year tsunami. Additionally, the Project would conform to the latest building code requirements. For these reasons, the impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered to be less than significant Finding:. The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. Moreover, the Colma Creek flood improvement and channelization project was completed by the City in 2005, subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR. The channelization improved safety from flooding in the Project area. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -47 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? x b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, x policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation x plan or natural community conservation plan? SETTING Regulatory Framework South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance -1999 The South San Francisco General Plan (1999) identifies Project site as Community Commercial with a High Density Residential overlay. The Zoning Map identifies the site as Transit Village Medium Density Residential (TV-RM). The Project site is within the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan MT) and the BI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (ECRRP) areas. Transit Village Plan and Zoning -2001 Existing Designations The existing land use and zoning designation is Transit Village Medium Density Residential. Maximum residential development density is 30 dwelling units per acre, notwithstanding a 25% density bonus for inclusionary housing meeting state and City requirements. Short building setbacks are required; an active streetscape is required. The maximum perrrutted building height is 35 feet. Residential land use above podium parking is permitted for sites designed with rear access and tuck under and surface parking configurations MT, Prototypes Key Map, PT3 and 4, page 63). The Project proposes surface and below -grade parking, bicycle parking and storage areas. Proposed Designation: The requested TVRH amendment permits 50 dwelling units per acre. The designation requires residential uses above podium parking and street front retail along McLellan Drive. The Project proposes 49 dwelling - units per acre, podium parking with residential above and retail commercial on the ground floor along the McLellan Street frontage. PAGE 2-48 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed TVP Land Use Map amendment to High Density Residential would result in the same zoning designation as the RH land use corresponds directly to high density residential development standards. The RH designation would also bring the TVP land use designation into conformance with the General Plan high density residential land use designation. El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan 1993 and 2000 Amendment In 2000 the City amended the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan that was adopted July 14, 1993. The ECRRP's purpose is stated to eliminate blight, retain business, promote commercial rehabilitation, construct public infrastructure improvements and make improvements to various housing developments in the Plan .Area. The ECRRP amendment (2000 Amendment) added approximately 80 acres of property to the planning area (Plan Area) boundaries and modified development assumptions on 23 sites within the Plan Area. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed the development changes on each of the 23 sites. The Project Site is identified as Site 3, or the Cuneo Property in the 2000 ECREIR in Table 3.0 -1 (page 3.0 -7) and Figure 3.0-2 (unnumbered page 3.0 -12). Figure Li El Camino Redevelopment Project Area in Chapter 1 contains a summary of the development assumptions. The ECREIR analyzed the Project site development intensity at 21 multi- family residential units (37.5 dwelling units per. acre), 18,400 square feet of retail commercial (a 1.5 FAR) and 18,400 square feet of office. The Project proposes 20 dwelling units and 5,200 square feet of commercial. Development Assumptions on the Project Site As noted above, development intensity on the Project site has been envisioned and analyzed through various environmental documents associated with the General Plan, ECRRP and TVP. These three plans envisioned a maximum development of 37.5 dwelling units per acre (page 32, Table 2.2 -1 General Plan, Page 3.0 -7 ECREIR, page 105 TVP). The density corresponds to 30 dwelling units per acre plus a 25% density bonus for inclusionary housing, on a site larger than it exists today. The development assumptions for the Project site have remained constant over the past 12 years while the area of the site has changed. The acreage of the Project site changed as a result of the extension of BART to South San Francisco. In 1999 and 200() both the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan amendments noted the site at 0.75 acre. The 2001 TVP identifies the Project Site as 0.67 acres in anticipation of land area changes due to BART construction. Subsequently the Project site was reduced to 0.41 acres as a result of SamTrans' purchase of 0.34 acres which was used as staging and storage during BART construction. In summary, the maximum residential development intensity envisioned in the three plans for the Project site has remained constant for the past 12 years notwithstanding the changes in site area. The discrepancies between high and medium density development densities contained in the three plans are more a reflection of the changes in site area, and not planned development intensity. The maximum residential development permitted for the site, in absence of a density bonus, is 21 units. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-49 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Therefore, the Project proposes a Zoning Map amendment to Transit Village High Density Residential to construct 20 units of housing and 5,200 square feet of retail commercial on the 0.41 acre site in conformance with the density assumptions analyzed and planned over the past 12 years. County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) State law establishes an ALUC, in each county where one or more airports exist, to coordinate the compatibility of new development near airports. The ALUC does not have any authority over airport operations, but it does have the authority to conduct land use planning for areas around airport in the county. The ALUC makes a determination that general plans, zoning standards, and any proposed new development in its planning area are in conformance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The 1981 San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 161 -foot above mean seal level height limit around San Francisco International Airport. The Project site is within the Transitional Surface Slope of 7:1 Zone established by the ALUC (General Plan, Figure 2 -2 Airport- Related Height Limitations, page 34). The Project site is not within a Special Area Height Limitation (General Plan, Figure 2 -3 Special Area Height Limitations, page 35). As noted in Chapter 1 Project Description, the maximum permitted height, pursuant to the zoning ordinance, is 35 feet and with an approved rezone would be 55 feet. The requested height limit of 55 feet is 306 feet under the 361 foot more conservative maximum permitted by the ALUC (Airport Related Height Limitations, Figure 2 -2, General Plan, Page 34). IMPACTS a) Division of an Established Community Significance Criteria The Project would have a significant environmental. impact if it were to physically • divide an established community. The Project is located within an area planned for commercial retail /office and residential mixed use. The area immediately surrounding the Project site is mixed use with pedestrian oriented commercial and residential uses and mass transit. The TVP stated purpose is to "tie existing and new residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, transit facilities, parks and nearby schools together in a safe, convenient, and walkable environment for residents, employees, and visitors to the area" The Project site, identified as the Cuneo site in the TVP, is identified as "crucial to the identity of the transit village" (TVP, page 11). Thus, the Project would have no impact on dividing an established community. b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. PAGE 2 -50 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Project site is designated for mixed use residential and commercial uses and the Project proposes a mixed use commercial residential use. The requested zoning map change to Transit Village High Density Residential would bring the TVP into conformance with the General Plan designation of High Density Residential and would permit a height of up to 55 feet. The Project proposes a 35 foot height maximum on all aspects of the building save the comer at McLellan Drive and Mission Road where the height would be 50 feet. The proposed maximum height would be 355 feet below that identified by the Federal Aviation Administration deemed necessary to protect public safety. The Project, which includes the request of a rezone to Transit Village High Density Residential and a Maximitnum Building Height Map (SSFMC Figure 20.250.004(D)) amendment to 55 feet, would conform to all applicable land use plans and zoning regulations and, therefore, would have no impact. Moreover, the Project would be consistent with the development assumptions for the site over the past 10 years as identified in the General Plan, ECRRP and the TVP. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There are no conservation plans either currently in force or proposed for application to the subject property as discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, above. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on conservation plans. Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is currently designated, and used, and the surrounding land uses are mixed use residential, commercial and transit. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -51 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.10 Mineral Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentially Less Than Less Than DeterminationofEnvironmentallmpact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other and use plan? SETTING The Project site is in a built -out mixed use commercial and residential area. IMPACTS a and b) Loss of Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to 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, or if it were to 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. No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site or within the Project area (General Plan Background Report, General Plan, 1993 and 2000 ECREIR, TNT). The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no irnpact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. PAGE 2 -52 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.11 NOISE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XI. NOISE — Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise x levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of x excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient x noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in x ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use x plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private x airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive nose levels? SETTING The dominant influences on sound levels in the Project area are derived from a combination of roadway, commercial and high school land uses. Temporary spikes in noise Levels in the Project area result from car horns and occasional aircraft flyovers. BACKGROUND Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. Residential, schools and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be noise - sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -53 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST To quantify the noise over a 24 -hour period, the Day /Night Average Sound level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These noise descriptors include a 10 decibel (dB) penalty (addition to the actual measures levels) during nighttime hours (10 PM to 7AM) and a five dB penalty during evening hours (7 PM to 10 PM) for the CNEL to account for people's sensitivity during these hours. Noise is measured and quantified with an A- weighted filter which closely approximates the way the human ear hears sound; a de- emphasis low - frequency and high - frequency sound. The resulting measurement is quantified as a dBA. A change of three dBA is considered just noticeable to the human ear. A five dBA change is clearly noticeable and a ten dBA change is perceived as doubling in loudness. Regulatory Framework South San Francisco General Plan The City adopted the state Noise Compatibility Guidelines promulgated by the Department of Health Services. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. These guidelines identified in Table 9.2 -1 of the General Plan (page 280) state that a noise environment of less than 65 dBA, CNEL or less is acceptable for residential lands use and less than 70 dBA CNEL is acceptable for commercial land use. South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32. Section 8.32.050) The City's Noise Ordinance restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.rn. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and .10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piec of equipment to 90 dBA, at the property line (Section 8.32.050 (d) (2)). The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2. Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation The regulation is collectively known as Title 24 which contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi- family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single - family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor - ceiling assemblies must 6 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A- weighting" written as "dBA". CNRT,: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). PAGE 2 -54 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level. of 45 dBA (CNEL or L in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or L Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) The USEPA identifies 70 dBA, Leg as the noise level based on continuous exposure (i.e., 365 and 24- hour a day exposure) below which the public is protected from hearing loss due to ambient noise sources. The L measurement is not a "weighted" noise descriptor as is the L Existing and Projected Noise Environment The Project site is not within the 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour identified on Figure 9 -1, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program _ 4rea, (General Plan, page 279), not within the 65 dBA, CNEL identified by the FAA as requisite for special insulation features to mitigate aircraft noise sources (Figure 9 - 3, Potential .Irfll Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours, General Plan, page 288) and is within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour influenced by rail and road noise sources (Figure 9- 2, Projected Road and Rail Noise, General Plan, page 283). The 2000 ECREIR identifies the Project area along Mission Road north of Grand Avenue at 63.6 dBA, CNRT, and El Camino High School (approximately 200 feet southeast of the Project site) at 61.3 dBA, CNEL. These noise level projections account for the entirety of the build -out assumptions identified in the ECRRP and shown in Chapter 1, Table 1,1 of this document. IMPACTS a — d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan (i.e., 65 dBA, CNET, without noise insulation for residential and in excess of 70 dB, CNEL without insulation for commercial land sues), the City's Noise Ordinance (90 dBA, CNEL at the property line) or the USEPA's threshold of 70 dBA, L continuous noise exposure (i.e. 365 and 24 -hour a day exposure,). Project Construction Project construction would result in temporary short -term noise increases due to the operation of grading and some construction equipment. Noise levels from grading operations typically range from about 75 to 95 dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Construction noise would be lower ranging from 75 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment. Noise levels would attenuate approximately six dBA per doubling distance 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -55 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST from the source. Grading and site preparation is expected to take two months to complete. Grading activities would not be a continuous source of noise on any given day. Construction and finishing work would take up to another eight months. Therefore, during site preparation the use of heavy equipment, such as a tractor, would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The site is in a mixed use commercial and residential area which is a moderately sensitive noise sensitive land use. Noise sensitive land uses around the Project site include multi-family residential adjacent and north of the Project site; cemetery use approximately 100 feet northeast; a mixed use ground floor commercial and upper level residential development west and approximately 60 feet from the site; and the El Camino High School approximately 200 feet south east of the Project site. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed construction and operational impacts associated with approximately 500,000 square feet of office and retail development for the entire ECRRP area. The Project represents 5,200 square feet of the total commercial square footage and 20 of the 757 residential units analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project itself would involve less grading and construction than envisioned and analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR as the Projecz site is approximately half the area and would construct approximately 18,000 square feet less office and 12,000 square feet less retail than analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. All these factors reduce the noise impacts of the Project from that analyzed and envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The 1993 ECREIR identified and the 2000 ECREIR restated compliance with Title 24 noise mitigation standards, compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, and compliance with typical noise attenuation requirements as mitigation measures for noise impacts. The noise mitigation measures are identified on page 5.3-23 of the 2000 ECREIR and include limiting noise-generating construction activities to the hours stipulated by the Noise Ordinance (Note: This is required by law as part of the Project and not a mitigation measure, per se.); muffling and maintenance of equipment; prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; maximum separation of stationary noise sources from sensitive receptors; using lower noise emitting equipment and muffling equipment; notification of neighbors within 1,000 feet of the construction site and designating a "noise disturbance coordinator" (i.e., a representative of the City typically paid for by a developer pass-through agreement) that is responsible for responding to and enforcing the noise mitigations. Construction noise was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted in 1993 and restated in 2000. Noise associated with the most noise intense portions of Project construction, site preparation, could reach 95 dBA, intermittently throughout an eight-hour work day. Noise attenuation from point sources, such as construction equipment, is six dBA per doubling distance. Therefore noise reaching the cemetery approximately 100 feet could reach 83 dB_A. Noise at the mixed use development west of the project could reach 89 dBA and noise to the residential uses north of the project could be 95 dBA. Noise to El Camino High School could reach 65 dBA at the parking and outdoor areas. These numbers are intermittent and not continuous external noise levels. PAGE 2-56 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Interior noise levels would be approximately 20 to 25 dBA lower for buildings of newer construction with closed doors and windows. Residential and commercial development in the Project area was constructed post 2000. 'Therefore, noise attenuation provided by the building envelope is assumed to range from 20 to 25 dBA. Maximum noise levels for the residential building north of the Project could be 70 -75 dBA. Development west of the Project could be 59 -64 dBA. The classrooms of the high school could be reduced 20 dB due to building attenuation. Although annoying at times, the noise levels would not represent a health risk set by the USEPA (70 dBA, Leq exposure 365 and 24 -hour a day). During later phases of Project construction the shell of the building would further attenuate noise to surrounding land uses. The attenuation afforded by the building would further reduce noise impacts. Construction related noise would be considered no impact over that identified in 1993 and 2000 environmental documents; noise associated with grading operations would be annoying but would not pose a health risk as identified by the USEPA. The mitigation measures required as part of the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents would reduce noise exposure and prepare residents to the north and west for a brief construction period thus allaying some annoyance. Project Operational Noise The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be shielded as a result of Design Review Board and staff review and requirements (i.e., as a matter of law). Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely 'perceptible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3 -5 dB). The Project would add approximately 181 average daily trips to the traffic stream (Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 7t Edition). The El Camino Real /McLellan intersection supports 25,000 ADT. The Project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes and as such would not add audibly to the noise environment. Moreover, as noted above, the reduced size of the Project would reduce noise in the Project area beyond that envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project, as a matter of law, is required to comply with Title 24 noise insulation standards. Noise levels in habitable rooms trust be designed to 45 dBA. Title 24 requirements as a part of the building permit process would reduce interior ambient noise in the residential portion of the Project to 45 dBA, CNEL. The Project is within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNFT, noise contour (Figure 9 -2, Projected Road and Rail Noise, General Plan, page 283) which is under the 65 dBA, CNEL standard for residential and 70 dBA standard for commercial land uses. The Project is in compliance with the General Plan standards for noise. Operational noise impacts are considered to be less than significant for residential and commercial land uses and construction impacts are considered no impact beyond that identified in the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -57 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The Project site is four miles from San Francisco International Airport and not within the 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour identified on Figure 9 -1, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, (General Plan, page 279). The Project site is also not within the 65 dBA, CNEL identified by the FAA as requisite for special insulation features to mitigate aircraft noise sources (Figure 9 -3, Potential infzll Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours, General Plan, page 288). The Project, based on the City's land use criteria would not result in no impactwith respect to aircraft noise. Finding: Construction and grading related noise would be considered no impact beyond that identified in the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents. Construction noise was identified in the 2000 ECREIR as a significant unavoidable impact. The City adopted Findings of Overriding Considerations. Noise associated with grading operations would be annoying but would not pose a health risk as identified by the USEPA. The mitigation measures required as part of the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents would reduce noise exposure some, and prepare residents to the north and west for a brief construction period thus allaying some annoyance. The building envelope of the Project, during construction, would reduce noise impacts further than those identified in this analysis. The reduced size of the Project site and proposed construction would further reduce noise impacts beyond those identified in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project would have no impact with respect to aircraft noise as it is outside the aircraft impact zone of 65 plus dBA, CNEL. The Project would not double traffic volumes in the Project area and as such would not increase noise levels associated with operational use. PAGE 2 -58 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant ;Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, x either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing x housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, x necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SETTING The Project proposes a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the Transit Village plan as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, above. IMPACTS a) Population Growth Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth. The Project proposes 5,200 square feet of retail and 20 condominium units. The ECRRP amendment envisioned 21 units of housing and 18,400 square feet of office and 18,400 square feet of retail. The Project would result in less growth but would fit within growth assumptions identified in the planning documents. The Project's would have no impact on population growth. b and c) Displacement of Housing or People Signance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site. There are no residential units on the project site. The Project would not require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on -site and therefore would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -59 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in General Plan, ECCRP or the TVP. The Project site does is vacant and would not displace housing units or residents. 2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X SETTING The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and Transit Village Plan as noted above in Section 3.9Land Use and Planning IMPACTS i -iv) Public Services Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to 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 ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. As described above, in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.12 Population and Housing, the Project would not increase the City of South San Francisco's population beyond the population projections contained in these plans. The Project would be developed in an area PAGE 2 -60 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION planned, used and zoned for mixed use residential and commercial land use and within the development density envisioned by these planning documents for residential use and under the commercial density envisioned by these planning documents and their accompanying environmental documents. No significant increase in the demand for public services would be expected with no increase in population. The Project would result in no impact associated with public services. Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan, TVP and ECRRP. School impact fees are collected by the City's Building Division based upon the square footage of residential and commercial construction. These fees are used by the school districts for school services. Development of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. 2.14 RECREATION Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other X recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of X recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SETTING The Project proposes a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.12 Population and Housing, above. IMPACTS a and b) Recreation. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities could be anticipated, or if it Ns ere to include recreational facilities, the construction of which might have adverse physical effects on the environment. Parks and recreational needs within the City are identified from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Centennial Way a linear park above Colma 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -61 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Creek was constructed in the Project area extending from the City's southern boundary the BART station, just across the street from the Project. The Project is required by law to comply with the City's Quimby Act ordinance with respect to paying in -lieu fees for recreational purposes. The fee structure is based upon population per household as derived from the California Department of Finance and site acreage, and.is a required condition of subdivision approval. The Project's impact on recreation facility demand or construction would be less than significant as a result of the City's plans for park maintenance which is funded in part by in -lieu fees. The Project's in -lieu fee would be used for park and recreation maintenance and construction. Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is proposing development consistent with the General Plan and is required by law to pay Quimby Act fees for park and recreation development and maintenance. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. PAGE 2 -62 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.15 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentialy Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial x 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a x level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, x including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design x feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? x g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or x programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SETTING The Project site is at the corner of Mission Road and McLellan Drive. Access to the site is derived from Mission Road, McLellan Drive, Hickey Boulevard and. El Camino Real. The South San Francisco BART station, public transit, is directly across from the Project site. The 2000 ECREIR describes the local and regional roadway system in detail. The 2000 ECREIR did not identify- any significant unavoidable impacts with respect to redevelopment plan build -out. IMPACTS a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -63 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project would result in 12,200 square feet less retail development and 18,000 square feet less office development than envisioned and analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. The reduction in square footage accordingly translates to less average daily vehicle trips (AD I). Using the ITE standards identified in Section 2, Air Quality, approximately 306 less ADT's would be generated by the Project from that analyzed in 2000. As a result, the Project would have no impact on local road networks beyond that identified in the 2000 ECREIR. Moreover, as identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.1, improvements to the circulation network have been constructed. The improvements provide for better vehicular and pedestrian movement in the Project area. The improvements include: Hickey Boulevard extension; Restriping of Hickey Boulevard at Tunipero Serra approach for an exclusive left turn lane, exclusive through lane, and a shared through /right turn lane; modification of east /west signal for an exclusive left turn lane; Widening the southbound El Camino Real approach for an exclusive right turn lane at the El Camino Real /Westborough Boulevard /Chestnut Avenue intersection; Fair share fee collection during entitlement review and approval (levied as a condition of approval) for the future signalization of Mission Road /Evergreen /Bart Access Road; BART Road construction; and McLellan Drive construction. The South San Francisco BART station has been constructed, and Centennial Way Trail (2.85 miles) from San Bruno BART Station to South San Francisco BART Station has been constructed. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Signficance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Air Navigation 1lazards are discussed in Section 3.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent with the previous discussion, the Project would have no impact. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic. Traffic patterns and circulation on the site would remain predominately as they currently exist. Currently, there are 12 parallel parking spaces along the McLellan Drive frontage. The Project would replace the parallel parking spaces with 6 angled parking spaces and the entrance to the podium parking. Pedestrian access would be improved off (BART, bicycle, pedestrian). The Project would have no impactwith respect to incompatible land uses. PAGE 2 -64 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION e) Emergency Access Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequate emergency access. The Project would keep the existing site access pattern off of McLellan Drive, and would not change the emergency vehicle access to the Project site. Representatives from both the Police and Fire Departments (though entitlement review) have reviewed the Project and have not identified impacts associated with emergency vehicle access. The Project would have no impact on emergency vehicle access. f) Parking Significance Criteria: The Project would have significant effect if it would result in an inadequate amount of parking being available. For residential units, the T`' -RH district requires a minimum of one and a maximum of 1.75 parking spaces per residential unit, with the required amount dependant on access to transit facilities. (SSFMC Table 20.250.004(N)) The Project would have 26 parking spaces for residential tenants on the bottom parking level, within the range required for residential units. For commercial units, the T V RH district requires one parking space per 300 square feet of area. (SSFMC Table 20.250.004(N)) On- street parking can be counted toward the parking requirements, and the number of required parking spaces may be reduced up to 25 percent with approval of a Use Permit (Section 20.250.004.N.2 -3.) The Project would have approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial space, which would require a total of 17 parking spaces. The Project would provide nine on -site parking spaces on the ground floor and six on- street parking spaces along the project frontage, resulting in a total of 15 parking spaces for commercial use. The Project, which includes a request for a reduction in the number of commercial parking spaces required, would conform to the zoning ordinance standards and have no impact with respect to parking. g) Alternative Transportation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict u;ith adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Project implements the TVP to encourage the use of public transit by being located within walking distance of the BART station, by providing less parking on site as stipulated in the TVP and by providing pedestrian pathways and bicycle parking and security. The project would have no impact on alternative transportation goals and implementation of those goals, Finding: The Project would result in less ADT's than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project would not result in introducing hazards to design features or incompatible land uses. The Project would not alter air traffic patterns or impact the emergency access to the site. The Project would not result in parking impacts. 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY _� PAGE 2 -65 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Factors and Focused questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Impact — Mitigation Impact Impact Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and x resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve x the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted x capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? SETTING Utility requirements resulting from Project site buildout were analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project proposes approximately 18,400 square feet less office and 1.2,200 square feet less commercial than envisioned and analyzed in 2000. Moreover, in the ECRRP area, approximately 305,000 square feet less retail and 189,400 square feet less office has been constructed than envisioned. PAGE 2 -66 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY - -- CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IMPACTS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The City's storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The South San Francisco Municipal. Code (Tide 14) contains regulations related to stormwater management. As identified in Chapter 1.3.4 as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMP's and comply with SWPPP regulations. The 2000 ECREIR identified the need to upgrade stormwater infrastructure in the Project area. Stormwater and wastewater lines were upgraded along Mission Road, McLellan Drive and El Camino Real as a part of the BART station construction (Sarn Bautista, Senior City Engineer, June 2010). The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. b and e) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Significance Criteria The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. Wastewater The City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) was upgraded in 2000 -01 since the certification of the 2000 ECREIR. The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallon per day (MGD) and is currently generating 5.6 MGD. The capacity allocated to the City of South San Francisco is based upon the growth projections identified in the City's General Plan, TVP and the ECRRP. The Project, as a condition of approval, would be required to pay a pro rata, fair share sewer improvement fee to cover the costs of the wastewater improvements. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY _ PAGE 2 -67 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The 2000 ECREIR identified the need to upgrade the WQCP and the plant was upgraded in the last quarter of 2000. The Project would generate less wastewater than envisioned and planned for in the 2000 ECREIR, as the Project proposes 18,400 square feet less office and 12,200 square feet less retail development. The Project would have no Impactwith respect to wastewater treatment. Water See discussion under d, below. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would connect into the stormwater facilities previously upgraded and located in Mission Road and McLellan Drive. On site trenching would occur to :install lines to connect to existing facilities. The Project would have no impact beyond that analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR with respect to increased storm water runoff or the building or expansion of new storm water drainage facilities. d) Water Supply Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether projected water supplies can meet a project's water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5) identify residential projects _generally exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo County by the California Water Service Company (C\X'SC), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWMP was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610 - 10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd. (c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. The Project would have a less than significant impact and arguably no impact on other water resources as it would not meet the impact thresholds identified above, and because the UWMP was based upon the development scenario for the site that includes 18,400 square feet of retail and 18,400 square feet of office land use. A new water assessment would not be required for the Project PAGE 2 -68 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION as the Project would not exceed the development assumptions contained in the ECCRP and the LWMP. The Project would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to water usage. The UWMP projects and accounts for the South San Francisco service area within the CWSC jurisdiction. The projected 2010 population is 57,977 which includes the 2,410 additional persons anticipated as a result of land use intensification identified in the S /ECRGPA discussed in Chapter 1. f) and g) Solid Waste Signfcance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be served by a landfill with inadequate permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Building Division, as a requirement of a demolition permit, requires the recycling and / or reuse of demolition materials (Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Inspector. June 2010). Project plans are required by law to include recycling areas on the building permit drawings. The Project would generate less solid waste than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. Construction and operation of the Project would generate a less than significant amount of solid waste, and operation of the Project would be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Finding: The City's wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000 -01 and has adequate capacity to treat Project wastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The UWMP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the Project. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, stormwater and utility impacts. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 - 69 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade X the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are X 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, X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Quality of the Environment Impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with measures that are required bylaw Implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of the environment provided all policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the measures contained within this chapter are implemented. b) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be less than ,sigh &cant. As discussed in the preceding sections of this checklist, implementation of the Project would not cumulatively impact the environment provided all policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies are adhered to, and the measures contained within this chapter are implemented. c) Adverse Effects on IIurnan Beings The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Noise, air quality, and traffic impacts on adjacent land uses are less than significant The Project would not expose people to new hazards such PAGE 2 -70 1 309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION as geologic risks, flooding, or airport hazards. There would be no other adverse effects on human beings. 1309 MISSION ROAD — INITIAL STUDY — PAGE 2 -71 CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS SUMMARY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 3.1 FINDINGS Aesthetics The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the Project site or in the Project area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic or visual quality associated with the project. The Project would not exceed the height limits posed for safety concerns by the ALUC and at 35 to 50 feet would be comparable to adjacent development which reaches 55 feet in height for a design feature. The Project would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the 2000 ECREIR and no new mitigation is required. Agriculture The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The Project site is not planned or zoned for agricultural use and is not in agricultural use. The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any agricultural uses or impacts associated with development on the Project site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. Air Quality The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non - attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM -10). The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any significant unavoidable impacts associated with air quality. This Initial Study does not identify any new or intensified project related impacts. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to air quality with respect to GGE and GCC. The City's building permit procedure captures the BAAQh1D permitting regulations, as well as dust control measures. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. Biology The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Cultural Resources The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. There are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within 1.0 miles of the Project site based upon existing data including literature searches, soil borings taken to a depth of 34 feet and grading. The Project would have a no impact on cultural resources. 1309 MISSION ROAD — ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PAGE 3 -1 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Geology and Soils The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and as such the potential for ground rupture is very low. Conformance with the 2007 California Building Code would reduce seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. The site soils are not expansive with a Plasticity Index of 15. Site soils and are considered low impact with respect liquefaction. Subsidence would be approximately 0.1 inch which is considered low. The Project would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground failure. The site is flat and not subject to landsliding. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Project site is appropriate for mixed use residential and commercial land use. The Project would not introduce a fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normally anticipated with mixed use residential and commercial land use; would not expose a school to the risk from hazardous materials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact from hazardous materials exposure. The Project would not impede emergency response. Hydrology and Water Quality The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. Moreover, the Colrna Creek flood improvement and channelization project was completed by the City in 2005, subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR. The channelization improved safety from flooding in the Project area. Land Use and Zoning The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is currently designated for mixed use and the surrounding land uses are mixed use residential, commercial and transit. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. Mineral Resources The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. Noise Construction and grading related noise would be considered no impact beyond that identified in the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents. Construction noise was identified in the 2000 PAGE 3 -2 1309 MISSION ROAD— ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ECREIR as a significant unavoidable impact. The City adopted Findings of ON erriding Considerations. Noise associated with grading operations would be annoying but would not pose a health risk as identified by the USEPA. The mitigation measures required as part of the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents would reduce noise exposure some, and prepare residents to the north and west for a brief construction period thus allaying some annoyance. The building envelope of the Project, during construction, would reduce noise impacts further than those identified in this analysis. The reduced size of the Project site and proposed construction would further reduce noise impacts beyond those identified in the 2000 ECREIR The Project would have no impact with respect to aircraft: noise as it is outside the aircraft impact zone of 65 plus dBA, CNFT . The Project would not double traffic volumes in the Project area and as such would not increase noise levels associated with operational use. Population and Housing The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan, ECCRP or the TVP. The Project site is vacant and would not displace housing units or residents. Public Services The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan, TVP and ECRRP. School impact fees are collected by the City's Building Division based upon the square footage of residential and commercial construction. These fees are used by the school districts for school services. Development of the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively_ Recreation Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is proposing development consistent with the General Plan and is required by law to pay Quimby Act fees for park and recreation development and maintenance. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. Traffic and Transportation The Project would result in less ADT's than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project would not result in introducing hazards to design features or incompatible land uses. The Project would not alter air traffic patterns or impact the emergency access to the site. The Project would not result in parking impacts. Utilities and Service Systems The City's wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000 -01 and has adequate capacity to treat Project wastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The UWNIP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the 1309 MISSION ROAD — ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PAGE 3 -3 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Project. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Project would not 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION I find that the Project impacts are equal to or less than the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2000 ECREIR) and the 1993 Environmental Impact Report and that the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (2000) shall be restated and re- adopted along with this 2010 Initial Study as an Addendum to the 2000 ECREIR. This finding is based upon the requirements of Section 15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 wherein an Addendum may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to a previously certified EIR and none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 have occurred. I find that pursuant to Section 15161 there are no: (1) Substantial changes in the project that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. And that there is no: (3) New information of substantial importance that has become available and was not known at the time of the previous EIR's that would result in one or more significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different from ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined b3 the project applicant. Signature Date Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner PAGE 3 -4 1309 MISSION ROAD— ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Exhibit B MMRP ,--fV a F 4 4 § # s r '§i a y 'C a. N E N N . . a y/ L1 -yc S Ts :c L 4. E n i , €trw*C CL' e- 7 ,. � C.. k • 0 Xr.4. 7.45 S N JD < 5 ° _ ° ° • OC �� El� ...i. 3 , —a3 sa M � ! , Y a � , ` 0. iii ... i F , t' w , Eig § 1 §! - '� a tg ; G m` .J f 16 FG g �� �� 0.0 �� a 2 Z E C G it g.. 3 � �5 S , � uzs� ° , , » - c > - —,, w g z � „ 5 a g< Fi S� a.a Ada .� 1 • E i• .v PO 1. I r i it ; .t; a V al 3 t , c,-, M1 y ; b G 5 . 0 U je w Y L — g f ll 1 t4-r7-41 Li. f �A� s 'el tg • ,.— aa ti L ii. E Q M r ' ..- - h a ta i i a-"? ar i i , :t c. i a: �� a }.�y .L',1 §`' bo ›. r4 4;,111 c co Et,, t ...fa a0. R tt r .* C d C e . y E - u ¢ w F ? i E L' tn l jH u uh I �+ tJ R L a • w • • • • A '2, i S• _ � l's IS ie j I. ---- --.�... m 1 F — T T • y r . Y•. M O ii . 0 '_� N E " w :.nc c . c A - rt_ c3 c/. 1.E 1� P IL o 0. .3 0 N ,4 0 v E ., Ei t. C.... V -„A• . . 2, Q 2 ,, E >.bo. 2 = — -g '-` ""' ri, a tr ps m k . E . Ti c a fl J 22 " v • E '0 L 1 i d i -c s 7I .► 0-;c" c., ,) > Z t 2 2 t Go :, tc 4.—c At 2 s '2 0..— mg . " 4 7 2 1i , 3'2.E >.. r. rip Ee g 6 C "4 C l G Op �E' °fir 0 . WQ �.y...,y o 2C_ ... D fix 1�4 *�, O in o., • a o .d.4:. 3 c id c . - a >� ' '• ►, d � � a a E .... a a ' 1 b ` e . "• V ; . . dE V 5fa°o°o a t t i , c e : .,. i 2 ..3 T.-3 h yi ' „ a i i t . �.k r.. ? ti T I . o � 1 4 1 J 151 21 8. 1 � G 14.. • c, w a < or. }g d. t 2 i i i . 'S 9�.I� 2.i: _' iC C � 1p ` O � q -1 gvi As E : I 1 i f:9 1 I 1 i 1 i I!: : .: g �:�; *i 1 z, 5 s , & . .. § g24 1 ^ i 1;76 tt y C �� y � L GC � � E c`� �C m ' "1 .P=To 1 i E 1.. roul 2 Q. . • p. c x ' • 8 ' 04 "off ag I p t v 3q - r 3 R ,v...: ,. . i 'Eg3 0 ig ,,.t.,...., ; u y� (fi g "�a� .. o o U 7 7) .5 < a g U �, . LI -- m 7i �Gb 1 G r 0. w 2 ; 10:4 04 LJNt 1 " x -4 t x Al z 4 t I ku a a m.'" r -� .. - 5i 1 12 1 g7 . I. `l � 1 7vgliii 21 ' 4 - t,. t-rtf ,t, v gal i Nit' el/ t UIS 3 'i E l T .,:t5. , , . , r. , 1, = . ..„ _ f .,,t..., 191 g In ' tkil 4tim I kt s 1 !11 . — , - a ' •,• A 411 g e / 2 -. Er 't 0 x r-:, 4 i .1 E w -- i : Vf d: a - 1 - 1 ti. � t e = jjj ..... Iv! I 1,1a.;, i c ill Fll 1 „.... ; ..- .i .._ .., . %., 1 a ...„, i 7 . .'/ :I - ........................ I. • • * [ .t".0.. [ . Z. -11 — " t sr cg at 81.1•42"8 . r 1 s- a g , 1 c ,... r ,...... x 2 s., E 'ft III; .... ._:. 2 Pt cS : E tr E = t V - 2 F:. s e , g...--- r, kr- z.1 gi A — Ts td ,, , , 3 f . , t ... .2 J t ' 0 . , " E 2 t i E ,...cg.- 0 .1 g -- 1 !bill t k-14.F c ,*- a' TA,Z ei c Po / ! i g 1 . ‘ • E Eer U .. 7 - 1 i giv ii-r cr.. *El E..11 is g r - a--- EaCirgrili_..—zg .5.s s v.t.ie g l - ... ... c e a 1 t g; 1,E 7...2 E :,- G 1 tat 4 Z 5 t E C I .t:1 ;', C — te ;•• c2,..2 ,‘, .... .... X ••- • • 1, .2 1 k •1 e.' al 7.= t r "-'" ; 5 -7 C= . ..f: - 8 bi 4 . ...,.... 1 ;,...., , c , 4:2 d 4 m 8 1 XA" 14 V to . S 2 I * 4 c 1 ' : . 7 i — 2 •'.-; Z - tv . :. .' e " . ' . . 4 ".• . i Z " . " ✓ . C . Erk t t..g .I.?; ,t lix 2 i t tit E ta0 g i 77-Ntz.!filk ' ' • a t t 92 a it- E • e E t ecel . A ., O U - . -.7 • a 15.'4'1 Il " •8 SIY - ii ii • I-- ..g i E - , - +7 I , ..1 • 1 V 1 a ,.. . V C ..3 •••••••••••••••...mea.0.11../ anmow. Ei!— „. f ;74., r. "2,1 ...., i .,„ ..., .. ., l ei :27r P r ils lie :� sue I . mi 1 a. 1 'Z' K � • - � itk`na .. , . = P t 1 1 ... 1 .. ,,. P N 1 ,:c 6 i. ...,..2 _. 1 'U -........-.........j Exhibit C Statement of Overriding Considerations STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, in development of a mixed -use project for the 1309 Mission property, as described in more detail below, pursuant to an Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment ( "2000" SEIR), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2000 SEIR. (Resolution No. .) The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project (as defined below). The proposed development consists of construction of a four -story mixed -use residential and commercial development, consisting of 20 residential condominiums above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground -floor commercial space and 35 on -site and six on- street parking spaces ( "Project ") on an approximately 17,582 square foot (0.41 acre) site, which is currently vacant, located at the northwest comer of McLellan Drive and Mission Road ( "Project Site "). Approval of the Project requires approval of Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and an Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project. Development of the Project Site was analyzed in the 2000 SEIR. Because the proposed Project included only minor changes to the development analyzed in the 2000 SEIR, none of which would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, an Addendum was prepared for the proposed Project, analyzing the changes and explaining why a subsequent EIR was not required under CEQA. The 2000 SEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts of the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment; therefore, prior to certifying the 2000 SEIR, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with CEQA. (Resolution No. 64- 2000.) To the extent that any of those significant and unavoidable impacts continue to apply to the proposed Project, the City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts listed below that are identified in the 2000 SEIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes, as it did at the time it certified the 2000 SEIR, that all of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the 2000 SEIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures and policies adopted with the Plan Amendment. Even with these policies, however, the City Council recognized and continued to recognize that the implementation carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Amendment. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts have been identified in the 2000 SE1R: IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan significant level of service impacts would occur in the AM peak hour at Avalon Drive / I -280 Southbound Onramp, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard intersection, and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue; and in the PM peak hour at Hickey Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard, El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard intersection, and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue. IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY: The Plan Amendment would result in some pedestrian safety impacts as well as safety impacts related to excessive speeds along Evergreen Drive and the provision of driveways along Mission Road Oak Avenue and El Camino Real. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS: The Amendment would result in short-term impacts related to construction noise. No new or increased impacts other than those studied in the 1993 EIR would occur under the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. NOISE IMPACTS: On -site noise levels along El Camino Real in the vicinity of proposed residential uses could exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL; this would be a significant impact. The impact was addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would result from the Plan Amendment. Single -event aircraft flyovers could result in excessive noise levels at new residential uses within the Project Area. The impact would be significant but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. Cumulative traffic would result in on -site noise impacts to future residential uses along El Camino Real. This cumulative impact would be significant but has been addressed by the 1993 EIR and no new or increased impacts would occur. IMPACTS ON REGIONAL AIR QUALITY: The proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment would contribute toward an increase in VMT that is greater than the increase in population and would not be consistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan. The Plan Amendment would potentially result in additional emissions. FURTHER IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY: Fugitive dust generated by construction and demolition activities under the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment could result in health and nuisance -type impacts in the immediate vicinity of individual construction sites. IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES: Updated studies have indicated that archaeological resources could be present on the California Water Service Company and Chestnut Creek sites. There is a proposed senior housing project and a fire station planned for those sites that may impact these resources. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council now balances the unavoidable impacts that apply to the proposed Project, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project, for the reasons set forth below. The following specific economic, legal, social, technological, land use, and other considerations support approval of the Project: A. The Project will further implement the City's vision of El Camino Real as an urban, pedestrian- friendly, transit - oriented corridor for residents to live, work, shop, and play, consistent with the City's support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative which encourages compact mixed -use development and high - quality urban design along El. Camino Real. B. The Project will make use of a currently vacant and underutilized parcel. C. The Project will provide additional affordable housing for the community. D. The Project will generate additional tax dollars for the City.