Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCostco Draft EIR April 1999•- .- Draft __ Environmental Impact Report Project Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco April, 1999 Table of Contents Section 1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................. 1-1 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Purpose and Overview of the Environmental Review Process...... 3 2.2 Lead Agency ..........................................................................................3 2.4 Initial Study ..........................................................................................4 2.5 Content and Organization of the Document .......................................5 2.6 Notice of Preparation ................................................................................5 3.0 Project Characteristics .....................................................................................6 3.1 Project Location ..........................................................................................6 3.2 Project Description .....................................................................................6 3.3 Project Objectives .......................................................................................11 3.4 Actions Addressed in EIR ....................................................................... .12 3.4 Site History ......................................................................................... .12 4.0 Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................... .13 4.1 Earth and Geotechnical ............................................................................ .15 4.2 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................... .18 4.3 Transportation and Circulation ............................................................. .23 4.4 Air Quality ......................................................................................... .37 4.5 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ .49 4.6 Aesthtics and Light and Glare ................................................................ .51 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .......................................................... .53 5.1No Project ......................................................................................... .53 5.2 Alternative 2: Multi-Family Residential ............................................ .54 5.3 Alternative 3: Retail Commercial Development ............................. .55 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative .............................................. .55 6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects ..................................................................... .57 6.1 Short-Term Uses v. Long-Term Productivity .................................... .57 6.2 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................. .57 6.3 Significant Irreversible Impacts ............................................................. .58 6.4 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ............................ .58 6.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. .58 6.6 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts .................... .60 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ....................................................... .61 7.1 Persons and Organizations ..................................................................... .61 7.2 References ................................................................................................... .61 8.0 Appendices ....................................................................................................... .62 May 02 99 09:16a RDE (5101 548-5964 p.2 Errata Sheet Costco DEIR City of South San Francisco May 4,1999 Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 should be revised to read as follows. Please replace the original Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 contained in the EIR document with the following. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (Near-Term Roadway Impacts): The project developer shall provide a fair share financial contribution to the following intersections to fund necessary traffic signalization and roadway improvements to reduce potential impacts to a Level of Service B. • Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard • El Camino Real/Mission Road • Hickey Boulevard/Camaritas Avenue • El Camino Real/Arlington Drive The timing and amount of contribution of improvements shall be determined by the South San Francisco Public Works Department. In addition, the El Camino Real/Westborough-Chestnut intersection shall be improved by adding an additional left-turn lane on the north, south and west legs of the intersection. An exclusive right-turn lane shall also be added to the east leg of the intersection. This would improve intersection operations to LOS D during the PM peak hour, Z ,~ F ... ~ ~ .~ h V Q~ c~ V r~ `/ 3 a ~ ~ ° a ~ ~~ z ~~ w ~ o ~ ~~ z ~~ a°a .~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ Z W ~v W ~~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ w d ~_ N ~ ~~ Q ~ ~~ .F+ C w d1 O ~ O 'C ~ ,~ .t1 ~ °.~, ~ ~ ~ H r ."~ 0 ., .~ w W O ~ .~ '~ .y +~ ~ T + ~ W ~ ~ V ~ ~ •.. a o ~ ~ b o ' ~ v~ z~ z ~. . ~ a1 «S ~ aJ ~ o ~° ~ . z ~ ~ ~ ~ U v °~ a~~~° a,a ~~~o ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 3-d >,°~° ~ ®o~o~~~'~~d~~ boa, ~] ~ 3~? ° o ~ V y O ~ ~ O x" w i r ~"'~ a .+ o w"-'O ~ a~ a'~ ~, ~ ~. ~~aoo ~3 ~ ~ ~ b0 ~ ~ o'er ~'~ ~ u'd a ~~`~~~~~cn.~U OC7 O ~ U ° ~~ ~ ~ a~ Q~ f~ ~ ~ .~ C co ~" V ~ .ii v ~ .. aJ ~ O p '~ ~ '~' s.. v .'_' O V Cn v ' ^" a: W LL E" ~ !~ O .~ ~ w i]. aXi O .~ LY] ~ ~ ~ ~ o p ~- fn ~ N o ~ i ~ w v i ef+ U U .b 0 V .; C W 0 U N C ^" +-~ ~ w bA V .. ~ ~- c~ u a a~ ~ E • ~ ~ ~' °' o zQ z •H ~ ~ V v c~ y C~ .N -F+ f~ 0 r.~.1 ~ • .~ ~ ii O z o ~ o ~ b0 ~' .__, ,. ~ ~' v . ~ ~ ~ C ~ b0 y ~ O O ~ ~,,.~ a" ~ ~ ~ ;~ y ~ ~ a' ~ ~ ~ C, ~ p ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O . , ~ ~' o ~~, a ~ '~ °' 3 ~ ~ a '~ u , o ~ a~ ~ b .o ~~u ~ ~3~~4"0'~3 ~°'o :~~~ ~'z ~ . 3 °'ov ooo o~ C ° vo ~>~~~ o ~ 3v ~ ~~ ~ ~ W ~ ~a ~m °~'~~oa ~~°' ~~ i °C . 0 v ~ °~ ~ ~' bi0 b ~~ ° ~ ~ o F o cn x v o ~ a~ ~~ , a i a ~ Gvb ~ ~ 'n'~ c~ cn.~ c ~cn a~ s a o a' cn ~ N ~o a ~~ ~ o~ W~ ~ UU b C c 0 V .; W W ~--i C O .~U N o ++ M rl ~ T T '~ w+ bA V ~ 'c .w fC ~- a~ ~ a ~ .., ~. ~ ~' ~ o zd z ~I • rl Q~ ~I .'~ i~r f~ "~ ~ CO .+.~ ~" f~ O bA ~ •.r bQ ..n r..i O z v ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o _ '~ ~ .O ~ b4 ~ V G~ -~ ~ ,_, t~ O y ~ ~ b0 ~' b ~ ~ V ~ V .~ ~ O O ~ ~~ 3 i~r ~i ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aD ~ `n ~ ~ ~, v 'L3 ~ w ~ ~~. Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ u u ~ ~ w cn «t +' ++ '++ -p b1D bA ~ ~ v .~~ ~~,,, ~, ~ v d" ~ ,ate., ~ t0 •~ •~ G~J 3 ~ W ~ •O vii +.~". '~ 'y ,G~^~ x„~ ~ w ~i ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ C F '~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 'o ~ a a r° 0 0 .~ .., M v O •+ ~ .~ A4 ~ ,~,.i w ~. Wv~ e!~ UU ~~ C ~ o ~ ~ `~ V ~ ~ ~ V ~v V ~ "" W W a ~ ~ ~ ao ~ ~ ~ w' ~ 0 0 z~ z z 0 0 .y U W it h C~ C O ..r Cei b4 .., .~ v .~ O H Q 0 ai u -.~ y W v~ .., ~. f~ Q1 Q O .,.+ r bfJ ..., .,., O z ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O v~3cn~~u~,v~~ w ~ by ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~'d ~ ~'~ O~ ~ O ~ vpi •~ ~ ~ ,~ 3 cn ~ U ~ 'C ++ _O ,~ O _ ~ ~ e~ O cn °.~'~~o~vaaQ'oo~~ 4+ ~ v ~ . ~~.' y ~ C!j N v O ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O~°3~~°-dao-~~oo° e-~ N eM ... a~ v fcS ° ..r ++ Ri bA ... ..., O z u ~~ ~ v m ~~~ ~o~,~.~ ~~oU ,, ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ v ~ o ~a,~ ~ ~ ^v O vii ~ .~ O Q'' ~ .~+~.-' ~ ~ O N N m ~~ Rf d 0 U ~U W LL ~ c co ~s 0 0 a~ o .~ U O y ~ O _ U U C td C C O w .; C w w O O C O .~ o ~' ~ r ~, ~ V a~ ~ w+ bA . .i (p ~- .r ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~' °~' o z~ z b i~ ~ .,. d"~ i-i Fr ~ Rr ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ 0 ..~ . , -F+ ~ ~ • .~ ..n w+ . .~-+ • ~ ~ . r..i O z ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o~~o ~ O ~ ~ ~ '~ aQ ocn~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~'~o°' ~a~ a c o ~ -d r" ~ °' ~ ~U v x.03 ~~ o C ... ~ ~'~ > ~ ~N ~ + o~ ~ LL p GJ ~ i"' 'O Gl '~ ,--, Ov . ~ ~ ,~ a a ~ ~' W p ~ ~, cn 0 0 a M v O ~ y N O ~' W ~ d+ U U .~ b cd c~ ~~ 0 .; W w 0 0 a 0 .~ C 0 ~ ~ V ~ CO .r"'. ~ `~".~ ~ ~ • • ,~ ~ ,4, ++ z z~ z ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~o ~ ¢,.~ o .~ r ~ .~ ~ ~ rr ~~~Q"~ov~ ~ °A `~ M ° ' ° ~ 3 $ ~ ~' ~ o cn a~ , ~~o~o ~?~~~~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °' ~~ ° ~ .~ o .~ °: ~ o ~o~o ~`~~~cn ~ ~ .~ ~°J~a `~ aavav' w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~~w ~ ~ ~H c, o ~ o z ~ . . . Q 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~o a ~, ~ ~ o " 3 '" " ~ ~ ~ ~ v ow~ o d ~'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v \ ~ ~ ~ H ~ a .ai ~ 'a ~ ~ .. ~~~ . ~ F z~~ ~ a 0 .,. y ~..~ a y M W v1 d~ ~~x ~x ~ a ~ a ~ ~~ ~ o~ ' ~ a 3~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~D ~~o .~ ~ .~ ~ V ~ ~ o -~ ~ o 'o .~ ~ ~ V ~ O ~V ~ O ~ W~ ~W '" x a bo ~ ~ .~ x ¢~ ~w xw ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, o a~ o '~ ~ ,~ -a ~ ~ ~ ' w "~~ ~~ U~ o ~ o~ o~ w ,.., .~ V CA R-. xaa ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~•~ ~ ~~~~ ~, °.~~ 3a~o~o o p4 °' `~ '~ a~~~ V G, ~ a ~ a~ v ~~C~~~ a~ w ~~ ~ eo ~ V ~ ~ z3u3°' N M d+ co a~ ~~ cU 0 U ~U C ~ ~ w " ~ c cu ~~ ~r ~° o a~ o .~ U O U U w O 0 o ~ .~ air ~ u .. ~; , ~ ~ ~ ' ~-+ c, v, as z~ z v ~ ° o a~ ~ ~ H~~ 3 ~~~ a ~ ,~ u ~ ~ ~" .~ ~ '~ •~ "~ ~'ti~ o o ,~ ~ ~~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ O .~ ~ e~ u v ~,.., C ~ ++ ~ Q,, c~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., y O ~, o a a a~, ~ ° ~ ~~~ ~ ~ . ~, ~ •3 ~, ~. o ~ ~~ •~oo~ °~ o ~" . ~ ~ a ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ caw ~"~c ~ , et! ~, 3~ y ~ ~ ~ N '~ ~~~~-d b ~ am ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~' c;~s ~ C ~o ~ ~ °~ v F, r.. -d , ~ a~~~ 30 .O ~ w V V~~ V V H a~ • ~c ~, o 'moo a 0 ai u M M W v~ eM ~~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ .~ o a~-o ~ ~ ° ~ . ~ ~ - .~ a~ ~ ~ , ~~`~~~a~~ ~~~ a, ~o ~ O ~ ~ ~ ate-' 0 ~'-~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ o ~ b o~ ~ ~o~ `~ ~ v ~ x ~•~ ~ "~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v w v ~ ~ ~ '-" G. ~ ~ o~ o ~~U o'rsv ~ ~ ~ ~ v u ~ V ~ v ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ O w '~ ~ ~ G1 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ ~. ~ °~Q ~ a3 a ~ . . ~ ' ,~ °~ a o ~ a o a v~ .+a ~~ .off ao~ ~~ ~~ ~~ vw •~ ~ ~ ~ w •. ~~ ~' ... ., ~ w ., - U ~p ° .~ , . ~U~ ~C~p ~ wcc a,~w~,~w~,~ .~ bn .~ ~ ~ b u: ~w x: ., ~ ~ ~O~~O ~ a o ~ ~ .~ '~ ~ ~ '~ .., ~ ai ~ ~ ~~ ~o U ~ ~ x ~ • a~ d~ a ~ ~" x~ v ~ 0 0 .~ .~ ~ '~ ~ w ~ ~ O a c~ a ,.~ a~ a~ ~ c~ a 0 ~U ~~ w " p c cn ~~ o ~~ o ... U O J U a 0 .y V rl F•OI T ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ V ~V ~ ~ ~ ~~1 W W a ~ ~/-~ ~ bQ 1~1 Rw •Vl ~ y r.+ ~ ~ 0 z~ z z 0 .; W o ~A , b ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,Wa°~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~•~~ ~ Q~ ~,~ `n vii ~Q ~ ~~.~ *~~' XCC 3 ~,~~'d G p O c~ ~ 0 ~ O ~ __Q' v O ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ 'T3 c~ • r+ ¢, ~ m CJ .~ ~a,~,v~~sco'a~vy 'Gam,°~a'ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a'i'd ~ u~'~ ~ G ~~o~ ~0^"3~~ 3a~tw~ ~~voo~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~U ~ .. ~ u Gb~ ~,s~ ~ .~ ..~ .~ ... O '~ .~ H Rf ~ ,~ y ~ ~ .d ~; ~ ~ W li [-i G ~ ~ O ~ ~ w O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a3u3~ dv3a,u.~~ ~Y ~° o a ~ ,~,,~ U O w M d~ o ~j ~ ~i d~ U U c 0 .y TT +~ 1 •^ ~ V/ T 1~1 ~ T b ~ ~ .,,, ao u u °~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ '^~ !d ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ z~ z ~ z 0 ~, 'c ~ ~ +~ W .~ C1 ++ '+. y ~ O ~ ~ 't3~, o ,~ ,--. ++ ~ ~ y O it .~.~ ~ ~ O 'i O .p c~ O ~ ,~ C c~ ~ ~ O Q"~,,, y ' O c~ y i~.i f~ ~ • ~ ~ 4.r ++ ~i a ~ O tr .~ i ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ i, a~ O~ ~ +, e~ip ~ ~ y ~D ~ ~ v ~ ;~ ~ ~ z ~o ~~~~V~av~ .~ p a .~ Q :~' ~ o v ~ v vii v ~ '~'d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q.. ~ v tC cA V O p a~i O~ _~ O 'X O H O B .a.. ~ C11 ~ v c~ C7 ~ V O yam, Q'' ~'~,, ~ -~'~+~.. .~ ox"+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~.~, CL ~ m ~ ~ a~ v +~ ~ +' ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 0.'m ~ ~~ ~ ~-o ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ w ~ a, ~ -- cn o o a ~ o .~ O N M ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ er ~ ~n b `~ c 0 .; w w 0 0 A ~ ~ ~ ~ 'firr `V v ~, R! .. w w w ~ ~± 0!J W •~ •y •y z~ z z z R, y a 0 i ao r~ v a C v .~ 0 F C O y a~ W v~ v a «s O •ao .~ 0 z V ~ ~ _ O ~ ~ a ~' ~ •~ °~ v ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ° 'O ~ o o ~ ~..,.~ ° Q°., o ~ o ~ ~~ ~ `~ ~•o a cw ~ °' ° ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ v d ~ v ,~~a •,-~ ~ +• ~, °'~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~. . H d+ c~ O •o ..., 0 z ~ is ~ ~j v O v ~~ ~~ 3 ~~ ~ a,o°'~~,-°3a u U~ O u~ O invo~0a,~~~~ o ~ ~ ~ °'"' •~: V ~~ ., .. b O °' ~ O ~ ~ ccS .+ + ++ ~ y w ~ O V ~ Maw° '~•+ .~~ r o~° ~ ~ ~p r «S '~ C1 ~ ..O ^' ~ ~ .~ ~ .Q O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ cn ~~'~ a,.~ ~~a.,o ~ ,o .~oA o ~~ ~a~-~s3~ '~ ~ ~= ° ;- v o a ~ ~ ~ . ., O , ~ s.. ~ ~ y X ~ ~., ~ ~ ~~~ Q~ .~~~ ~ ~ 0 +,~+ •~ y 3 ~s ~ b ~ ~ V a ~ O y W O ~ ~, u O ~ O ~-d ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ .~ ;~ biD ~~,~'p ~ a o ~ •,__. ¢.,,~ ~3~~~~1D ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ •O _~ ~ C~ p.r" v ,~ ~b °b~ ~o v ~ 'd ~ °o,~~ ~• aa°rwa~ M ~O o ^T` W C rn c~ d 0 U ~U C ¢ ~ w~ o~ ~o ~r ° o ~~ O .~ O U U 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Purpose and Overview of the Environmental Review Process This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (to be known hereafter in this document as the DEIR), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended. This DEIR describes existing environmental conditions within and adjacent to the proposed Costco development within the City of South San Francisco. The DEIR also includes measures which could be incorporated into the project to mitigate (lessen) anticipated environmental impacts to a level of insignificance or eliminate them entirely. Finally, this DEIR identifies and analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed project, cumulative impacts of this and other projects on the environment, and other mandatory elements as required by CEQA. Responses to comments received regarding this DEIR during the public review period will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Together, the DEIR and FEIR constitute the full Environmental Impact Report for the project. As provided in CEQA and implementing guidelines, public agencies are charged with the responsibility of avoiding or minimizing environmental damage to the fullest extent feasible. In fulfilling this responsibility, public agencies must balance a variety of objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors. As an informational document to local officials, governmental agencies and members of the public, the purpose of the EIR is to serve as a disclosure document, identifying potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. Approval of the EIR by the lead agency does not constitute approval of the underlying project, in this instance, the proposed adoption of the proposed Costco retail warehouse project. 2.2 Lead Agency The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency for preparation of the EIR, as defined by Section 21067 of CEQA. This means that the City of South San Francisco is designated as the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for approving or carrying out the proposed project and for assessing likely environmental effects of the proposal. Preparation of this EIR is in accord with CEQA, including all amendments thereto, and Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Methodologies used for determining standards of significance for each impact category analyzed in the EIR are based on CEQA Guidelines and are described in Section 4 of this DEIR. By applying appropriate significance criteria, impacts under Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 3 City of South San Francisco April 1999 each environmental topic have been categorized as either "significant" or "less than significant." Methods used to determine the level of significance of potential impacts vary depending on the environmental topic, as described in the individual subsections. 2.4 Initial Study Based on the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix 8.1) and discussions with the City of South San Francisco, the following environmental topics have been deemed not to have a potential for significant environmental impacts and therefore are not addressed in this Focused DEIR. Population and Housing: The proposed approval of the project would not involve construction of new housing or residential construction. • Water and Hydrology:. The site is presently substantially developed with paved parking areas and buildings so that no major increases in storm water runoff would be needed. Since the site is over five acres in size, the project developer will be required to obtain a Notice of Intent from the State Water Quality Control Board which will ensure that methods to maximize water quality will be incorporated as part of construction and long term operations. The project site is not subject to flooding. • Energy and Mineral Resources: New construction would be built to the most recent building codes and standards to ensure maximum conservation of energy resources. No unusual quantities of mineral resources are anticipated to be needed. • Noise:: Although incremental increases in levels of short-term noise would be created by construction of the project, adherence to existing City noise regulations (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code), which includes limitations on hours of construction, will reduce noise to less-than-significant levels. • Biological Resources: The project site is not believed to contain rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species. • Cultural Resources: The project site is not believed to contain archeological, paleontological, historical or other artifacts of historical, religious or sacred significance. • Public Services and Facilities: The project site is located within an urbanized area and is served with a full range of public facilities and services, including water, sewer, storm drainage, police, fire, electrical and natural gas energy and other services and facilities. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 4 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Recreation: The proposed project would not result in a need for increased recreation facilities or significantly impact existing recreation facilities since no new residential construction is proposed as part of the project. 2.5 Content and Organization of the Document Sections 15122 through 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines describe the content requirements of EIRs. EIRs must include: • a description of the proposed project, including objectives to be achieved by the project; • a description of existing environmental conditions; • an analysis of the anticipated impacts on the environment should the project be built or carried out as proposed; • feasible measures which can be taken by the proponent or the City to lessen or mitigate identified environmental impacts; • project alternatives, including the "no project" alternative; • significant irreversible environmental changes; • growth inducing impacts; • cumulative impacts, including environmental impacts of the proposed project viewed over time in conjunction with related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose potential impacts may compound or interrelate with the proposed project. 2.6 Notice of Preparation The City of South San Francisco has completed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project and has circulated the NOP to all Responsible Agencies, other public agencies and interested citizens as required by CEQA. Copies of the NOP and responses received by the Lead Agency during the NOP review period are included within the appendix of this document (Appendices 8.2 and 8.3). Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 5 City of South San Francisco April 1999 3.0 Project Characteristics 3.1 Project Location The proposed project site is located within the northerly portion of South San Francisco, on the east side of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. The street address of the property is 1556 El Camino Real. Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 010-212-070. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of the project site. The site encompasses approximately 26.7 acres of land and has a relatively flat but gradual slope to the east towards Colma Creek. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the proposed project site in relationship to major community features and streets. Surrounding uses include a trailer park and recreational vehicle storage yard to the north, Colma Creek and a cemetery to the east within the City of Colma and vacant lands to the south. A new residential development is under construction to the west, on the west side of El Camino Real, consisting of 174 single family dwellings and 34 townhomes. 3.2 Project Description The proposed project includes construction of a new warehouse distribution center on the site, to be owned and operated by Costco Wholesale. The proposed site plan for the project is depicted on Exhibit 4. A Costco warehouse sales facility is planned to be located on the northwest corner of the site. This building would include approximately 147,000 gross square feet of floor area in a single story configuration, with primary interior uses being administrative offices, a central receiving area and the wholesale portion of the building. The building would be used for wholesaling of goods and services, including food products, clothing, personal care, household and electronic goods, automotive supplies and similar products for resale, commercial and personal use. Sales would also occur to individuals who are members of selected employee and related groups. Hours of operation would be from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Exhibit 2 depicts the proposed site plan for the Costco facility. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 6 City of South San Francisco April 1999 .. A M M awr Rafael {_._I eo j Richmond Mill tot Valley ~'~ ~~ ~~ % Berkeley ~~ ~ ~~ ~_„ n ~ .Oakland San Francisco tot '~ Daly A City South San Francisco ti, Aa, n ~., Half Moon bay ce Q qia ~` -~~ e°a Martinez Concord Walnut .Creek SA h' ~~ San ,~ Leandro FRANCISCO ~ Livermore 8 A }' Pleasanton ~ Hayward San Mateo Fremont ea Redwood City e4 Palo Alto Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Jose Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COSTCO PROJECT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N 0 2 4 6 8 f0 miles m a ti a >+ a ~. En (City of Colma) ~~ 92 '~ ~, ~~ (Daly City) ~ ~ . ~~` \ ~ c~~ `'~, ~~ It a~+r: p1~ /V ~~ ~ ~ / ~ Ip ~~ ~ ~ GLYE1t1 ~' ~ ~ Duv~\ moo. aw. _.1T° ,~e ~. ~q ~~ y ~ ? ~ ^t, a J~ ITS ~ri~ cY.,q~~ ~~ g • S ~,y". eD*\ V ~ ~' +t~ r\t V P ORI/M '/V. Mo. ~ ~' ,~, b t i.IY ~ f ~ \ ,\\ m '~ Oe d! Y f n 1 \ O 35 \ ise 1 g ~~ Gf! '~ i' f~\ \ PERMAN~NiE ~ DR ~4b .a a '4 i !~~ ! ERp ~7~~f '~ ~ a 1 ' It ~` ~ CENTER E nr Cr ~~E crr RWt DR. ~ ~ ~ e+~ . y!~ ~Y dt M ~\ I`~Nlt ~ ! ~ eyy~ uiE ~ aERheEa Eloa V i`r!R/k n ~~~ ~~ aq {~' ~rf \• INa ~r d (City of Pacilica) ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~. ~.+~t~ ~ "' ~' a."0<< 4 e ` 9' p 0 x `'~ ~`p. ' a"teauE EEi ~ ~~~ ~ ~amrzsn ~ * `~d 'ed~ °f' ~y \ ~ Iy~ a ~ ~ ~' `~ C R. ' 6 EII. ~ A ~ \ tE ~1~j, CALIFORNIA ~`+'„ ~s j al. t \ ~~ ~. a~ °""~M trv u. C \.r eon \`~$y. , ~1 ,,~a ' ~C~ ? ? i' Na N p i'E~t Ic u. \ ~ ale4 GOLF CU/B ~ Exhibit 2 SITE CONTEXT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COSTCO PROJECT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N 0 1/0 1/2 3/4 1 mile ~ y ~ ~ ~ J~1N F9 N* F ~ ~ ~~ o., a N --{{ ~~ SZ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ s~ NY ~~ ~ ~~~ Ya A ~~ U ~ ~ K' ~ ~"' 'o spa {NO h P^ ~g ry r ~ u ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~I~ N UI n~ r g ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~s ~~ ~~ a~ n ~m~~~ ~~-~Qp7~p7 ~SYJO ~~ ~ ~~ ~ N Uf JI JI Y ..pp QQ ~ prp08~ ~ N Yryry± N s ~~ ~2~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ N ~NpN N yyN ~n' ~ V 6 ~~ ~~g ~ ~~ a} or~~~~ oo~l° ~~ YINZIOdITYO `OOSIONdNd AIVS HLf1OS 66-9Z-Z NtlTd 9.i.IS Sd97MOO d i8I-L6 OAI .LJ3lO~Id Z L N I w W V O z .~I U ~~ /~:\,~~do ~ ~ .` / / ma y i L -ti ;~~ ~-' i / ,~' ~_ ~ ~; r,s o ~ -/ j • / iy r . •~ J' ~. f /~ ~ L• b` ~ a D ~~ tt` R'~, \o ~` ~ / f ~ '~ j ~• /Y • / / ~ / / ~ ~ r~ j,' ,, ~' / Q `~~ / ~ ' Z n .i/~// //' /' y~ i /' ~ F W . ~' ~ ~ ~ /' ~/, / naiad 6661 bb~OZ~Li 9Z Qa~ [d~ 6Np"EZ-i0Vi8tL\AOi11S\iBi-L6\L6\091S00\~H Another component of the project would be an automobile gasoline service station to be constructed in conjunction with the warehouse facility. The gas station would be located along the easterly side of the site near the 60,000 square foot building with use of the gas station restricted to Costco members only. Four pump islands with canopies would be built with 8self-service pumps installed. A maximum of 16 vehicles could be refueled at one time. Hours of operation for the gas station would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days per week. New underground tanks would be installed as part of the gas station. In addition to the above, up to 50,000 square feet of retail space would be built on the project site, although specific users and a precise site plan have not yet been developed. Access to the site would be provided via two driveways along El Camino. The main entrance would be via a fully signalized drive located approximately 1300 feet north of the planned intersection of El Camino and the proposed Hickey Boulevard extension. The secondary entrance would be located along the northerly property line, approximately 800 feet north of the main project entry. Approximately 850 parking spaces would be provided. Associated improvements would also consist of minor site grading, construction of landscaping and irrigation systems within the parking lots and adjacent to buildings, installation of utility upgrades, including but not limited to water, sewer, drainage and telecommunication improvements, construction of identification signs and installation of new site lighting. The existing warehouse on the site was recently demolished, with opening of the new Costco facility planned for late 1999. 3.3 Project Objectives Objectives to be achieved as part of the project include: 1) Facilitating a higher and better utilization of the site through the development of a modern wholesale outlet facility; 2) Increasing employment opportunities in the community; 3) Assisting in toxic clean-up within the project area; 4) Increasing tax and other revenues to the City of South San Francisco and South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 11 City of South San Francisco April 1999 3.4 Actions Addressed in EIR Specific actions addressed in this Environmental Impact Report include: • Certification of the EIR; • Consideration of a Use Permit by the South San Francisco Planning Division; • Issuance grading, sewer, stormwater and building permits by City of South San Francisco; • Relocation of an existing 15-inch on-site sanitary sewer line; • Issuance of a Type C Sign Permit by the City of South San Francisco; • Encroachment permits from Caltrans to allow new driveways along El Camino Real; • A Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that storm water runoff from the site complies with surface water quality standards; • Encroachment permit from San Mateo County Flood Control District to discharge additional quantities of stormwater into Colma Creek; • Air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to dispense gasoline from the proposed auto service station; • Review by Congestion Management Agency to ensure consistency with the County-wide Congestion Management Plan (CMP). 3.4 Site History The project site was used previously used by Macys department store as a regional warehouse and distribution center. Due to changing business practices, the facility was no longer needed as a warehouse and was sold. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 12 City of South San Francisco April 1999 4.0 Environmental Analysis Topics Addressed in the DEIR This section of the DEIR identifies specific environmental areas which may be affected as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. The impact areas are discussed individually in subsections 4.1 through 4.8: 4.1 Earth and Geotechnical 4.2 Land Use 4.3 Transportation and Circulation 4.4 Air Quality 4.5 Hazardous Materials 4.6 Aesthetics and Light and Glare Each topic area is covered in the following manner: A. Environmental Issues An overview of issues related to the topic area. B. Environmental Setting A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general environmental conditions on and around the project sites. C. Environmental Impacts An identification and evaluation of potential impacts on the environment, should the project be constructed as proposed. Standards of environmental significance will also be listed which set forth the basis on which the identification of environmental impacts will be made. Standards of significance for this DEIR are based on such standards listed in the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental impacts addressed in this document include the following: Potentially significant impact, which means that the identified impact would exceed the environmental standards of significance. In some instances, impacts may be positive rather than adverse. Less-than-significant impact, which means that although an impact could be considered significant, it would not exceed the minimum environmental thresholds of significance. No impact, means that no environmental impact would be expected for a particular environmental topic. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 13 City of South San Francisco April 1999 D. Mitigation Measures An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be incorporated into the project to reduce identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. 4.1 EARTH AND GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the DEIR addresses soil conditions, existing topographic and geologic features, potential impacts related to site grading and soil erosion and the potential for seismic-related hazards. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Environmental Setting The following background information is based on soils and geologic information contained in a geotechnical report prepared by the applicant's geotechnical engineer, Kleinfelder (2/25/99) supplemented by community-wide soils and geologic information contained in the South San Francisco General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report, September, 1997. Regional conditions The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, a series of northwest trending mountains and valleys along the north-central California coastline. The region has undergone a complex geologic history of sedimentation, volcanism, fold faulting, uplift and erosion. Two geologic formations, the Franciscan Melange and the Great Valley sequence dominate the Coast Range. The Franciscan Melange is composed of interceded graywackes, shales, and limestones. The rocks of the Franciscan Formation tend to be fractured and mixed. The Great Valley sequence is composed of late Jurassic shales and lower Cretaceous sandstones. Soils The project site is located near the westerly bank of Colma Creek. Lands in proximity to the creek typically contain soils known as the Colma Formation, which extends on either side of the alluvial fan comprising the Creek. This soil type is characterized by loose, friable, well-sorted sand with subordinate gravel, silt and clay deposited during the Pleistocene age. It generally provides good foundations for structures and good earthquake stability if not substantially disturbed by artificial cuts. Seismic hazards The site is located within a seismically active region of coastal California. Regionally active faults in the vicinity of the project include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and San Gregorio-Seal Cove faults. These faults are capable of producing significant earthquakes that could cause strong ground shaking in South San Francisco. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the site Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 15 City of South San Francisco April 1999 and the Hayward fault is located about 16 miles to the northeast. The Calaveras fault is located about 34 miles to the east and the San Gregorio-Sea Cove fault is located about 13 miles to the southwest. Historically, the area has been subject to intense seismic activity. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone and no active fault zones are known to exist on the site. However, the site will likely be subject to a high degree of groundshaking from earthquakes generated on the San Andreas fault or other active faults in the Bay Area. Based on recent soil borings, the site could also be expected to be affected by secondary earthquake hazards such as liquefaction. Liquefaction is a process in which soils lose their supportive strength and become incapable of bearing the load of overlying soils or structures. Liquefaction occurs during earthquakes in saturated, relatively loose, sandy soils located within 50 feet of the ground surface. The Kleinfelder report concludes that the site under a significant seismic event, underlying sandy soils could liquefy resulting in settlement on the order of three inches. On other portions of the site, dense sands or clayey materials would have less of a tendency to liquefy, resulting in differential settlement on the site. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following standards of significance are used to assess potential environmental impacts related to geological, landform and topographic issues of the proposed project: • Exposure of people and property to the risk of harm from geological hazards and/or soil or seismic conditions; • Presence of an Earthquake Safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Seismic -Study Zone), an active fault or an area characterized by surface rupture that could be related to fault activity; • Increases over present levels of soil erosion. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Should the project be approved and implemented, the following environmental impacts are anticipated: site grading and excavation, soil erosion and seismic risk. These impacts would be applicable to both sub-areas. Impact 4.1-1 (Site Grading and Excavationl: Approval of the proposed project would cause increased amounts of site grading and excavation for construction of the new facility. Grading operations would proceed based on grading and Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 16 City of South San Francisco April 1999 excavation plans approved by the City of South San Francisco and completed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code(Less-than-significant impact). Impact 4.1-2 (Soil Erosion): Increases in grading and excavation would increase the potential for erosion of earthen material off of the site into local surface bodies of water (Colma Creek), the storm drain system and into adjacent streets. A major potential negative effect of soil erosion is degradation of local water quality by depositing organic and inorganic material in local waters. The significance of this impact is reduced through adherence to sedimentation and erosion control plans and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan included in the Notice of Intent (Less-than-significant impact). As a condition of issuing grading permits, the City of South San Francisco requires grading contractors to prepare and implement soil erosion and sedimentation plans. These plans specify placement of silt fences, straw bales, revegetation of graded areas and frequent cleaning of local streets during grading operations. Impact 4.1-3 (Seismic Hazard: During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong to very strong shaking is expected to occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction. Adherence to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code and specific grading and building foundation recommendations made in the Kleinfelder geotechnical report will reduce seismic impacts to ales-than-significant level (Less-than-significant impact). Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. No Earthquake Fault Zones, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, are located on the project site; and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the project area. In a seismically active area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously existed; however, the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure is low. Therefore, the risk of fault from a known active fault is considered low. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 17 City of South San Francisco April 1999 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Issues addressed in this section include potential impacts to existing land uses within the project area, to land uses surrounding the project area and consistency of the proposed project with regulatory plans and programs. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING EXISTING LAND USE On-site land use The project site was, until recently, occupied by a vacant concrete tilt-up building which formerly housed a regional warehouse and distribution facility operated by Macy's Department store chain. This building was recently demolished. On-site, paved parking has also been constructed on the site as part of the closed Macy's facility. A temporary construction facility to reprocess paving material presently operates on the southerly portion of the site to provide construction materials for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) southeast of the project site. Surrounding land use Surrounding uses include a trailer park and recreational vehicle storage yard to the north, Colma Creek and a cemetery to the east within the City of Colma and vacant lands to the south. A new residential development is under construction to the west, on the west side of El Camino Real, consisting of 174 single family dwellings and 34 townhomes. Regulatory Framework Land use, development and redevelopment of property within this portion of the community is governed by the South San Francisco General Plan, adopted in 1986 and amended since the original adoption date. The General Plan land use classification for the project site is Planned Commercial, which is intended to promote retail commercial, offices and similar uses. One of the primary methods of implementing the General Plan is through the City's Zoning Ordinance, which regulates land use, building height and setbacks, parking and other development standards in conformity with the General Plan. The South San Francisco Zoning Map designates the project site as "P-C-L- Planned Commercial," consistent with the General Plan designation. Permitted land uses within this zoning district include civic uses, retail commercial, administrative and Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 18 City of South San Francisco April 1999 (City of Colma) Planned Commercial N`cKEy g~VD Retail Commercial /\ .. M M N 0 ~~ GO P ,G\5 ~~~~ ~~ J~ 5~ EI Camino High School Low Density Residential Planned Commercial EL CgMINO REgL Plann Comme Medium Density Residential Low ' Density side` entlal SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, General Plan Land Use Diagram, Rev. 10/98 Exhibit 5 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS N FfOj@Ct $It@ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COSTCO PROJECT Nor o goo zoo 300 40o sao iooo peer ro FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCALE P-C-L Y 0LV0 N~~KE C-1 .. .;, w :. UQ'~~~ ~P~tP`' GP / ( \ \ R-~=E (City of Colma) ~~-GO F , G\0 ~~~~ ~~ J~ 50 EI Camino High School R-1-E P-C-L \\~ ( EL CAMINO REAL P-C-L R-2-H R-1-E \ / ~~E SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, Zoning District Map, Rev. 9/98 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COSTCO PROJECT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 6 ZONING DESIGNATIONS C-1 Retail Commercial O-S Open Space P-C-L Planned Commercial (30 units/acre) R-1-E Single Family Residential (8 units/acre) N R-2-H Medium Density Residential (15 units/acre) Project Site NOT 0 100 200 300--4-00 500 1000 /eet ro SCALE business offices, food services and similar uses. Surrounding zoning designations include "Planned Commercial" to the north and south of the project site and "R-2- H, Medium Density Residential" west of the site. Properties east of the project site are located within the City of Colma and are zoned a combination of "C- Commercial" along the west side of Mission and "G-Memorial Park" along the east side of Mission. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following criteria have been used to define instances of a significant land use impact: • if the proposed project is incompatible with on-site and/or adjacent land uses, causing the potential for a substantial adverse change in the types or intensity of existing land use patterns; • if a proposed project is not consistent with adopted land use policies, or would require a change in such policies in order to achieve consistency; • if a proposed project would cause the conversion of prime agricultural soils or disrupt existing agricultural operation; • if a proposed project disrupts or divides the physical arrangement of an established community. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Potential impacts include impacts to on-site land uses, impacts to adjacent or nearby off-site land uses and consistency with appropriate regulatory plans. Impact 4.2-1 (On-Site Land Use Impacts): Implementation of the project would convert a closed and demolished warehouse building with a warehouse sales facility and associated gasoline service station and associated retail commercial land uses. Such development would be in accord with goals, policies and standards set forth in the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Code and would be generally consistent with the previous use on the site (less-than-significant impact). Construction of the proposed facility would also result in Traffic and Transportation impacts (see Section 4.3) and Air Quality Impacts (see Section 4.4). Impact 4.2-2 (Surrounding Land Uses): Surrounding land uses include medium density residential to the west, an older mobile home park to the north and commercial uses to the south, all in the City of South San Francisco. The proposed use of the project site for a warehouse sales facility would have less-than-significant Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 21 City of South San Francisco April 1999 impacts to these uses. Similarly, less-than-significant impacts are anticipated with regard to the cemetery east of the site in the City of Colma since the cemetery is separated from the proposed Costco facility by Colma Creek(Less-than-significant impact). Impact 4.2-3 (Reg_ulatory Impacts): Implementation of the proposed project be consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the South San Francisco General Plan and permitted land uses and development standards contained in the Zoning Code (No impact). Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 22 City of South San Francisco April 1999 4.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Traffic, parking and circulation issues include an analysis of additional vehicular traffic associated with the proposed project, potential effects on local parking demand and potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists. (Note: the following section is a summary of a traffic impact analysis prepared for this project by Rajappan and Meyers, a traffic and transportation consulting firm. The complete text of the report is available in the office of the South San Francisco Planning Division). Environmental Setting Regional access to the proposed Costco site is provided by a combination of freeway and arterial streets. Interstate 280 is the primary freeway access to the site although it provides indirect access west of the site. Access from I-280 is provided by on and off ramps at Hickey Boulevard north of the project, and at Westborough Boulevard to the south of the site. El Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard, Mission Road and Junipero Serra Boulevard are the prime arterial streets providing access to the site. In the vicinity of the project site, Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard are the primary east-west collectors providing access to and from I-280. Junipero Serra Boulevard and El Camino Real are the primary north-south arterials. El Camino Real (SR 82) currently provides direct access to the project site. Interstate 280 in the proximity of the project site is an 8-lane freeway. It extends in a north-south direction from US 101 in San Francisco to US 101 in San Jose. Average daily traffic (ADT) on this section of the freeway is approximately 166,000 vehicles. El Camino Real (SR 82) in the proximity of the project site is a 6-lane arterial and extends in a north-south direction. Street parking is permitted along the east side of El Camino Real. Current average daily traffic (ADT) on this section of El Camino Real is approximately 24,500 vehicles. Intersections near the project site have been analyzed to determine traffic and circulation impacts of the projects, since intersections are generally considered the most critical factor in determining roadway capacity. The following intersections were examined in the course of this study: • El Camino Real/Mission Road El Camino Real/ Arlington Drive Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 23 City of South San Francisco April 1999 • El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd. • El Camino Real/Kaiser Permanente driveway • El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive • El Camino Real/Westborough-Chestnut • Westborough Blvd./Orange/Camaratis • Westborough Blvd. / Junipero Serra Blvd. •Westborough Blvd./I-280 SB offramp • Hickey Blvd. /I-280 SB offramp • Hickey Blvd/I-280 NB offramp • Hickey Blvd./Junipero Serra Blvd. • Hickey Blvd. /Hilton Avenue • Hickey Blvd./Camaritas Avenue • Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue • El Camino Real/Costco entrance/Midpeninsula • El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd./McLean Drive The Level of Service (LOS) concept has been used to perform intersection analyses. This concept uses existing and expected average vehicle delays corresponding to an "A" through "F" ratting scale, with LOS "A" representing free flow traffic with minimal or no delays at intersections and LOS "F" to describe heavy congestion with significant delays at intersections. For purposes of this environmental document, LOS D is used as the standard of environmental significance for signalized intersections and LOS E is used as the standard for unsignalized intersections Table 1, below, summarizes existing traffic conditions at study intersections without the proposed project. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 24 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Table 1. Existing Intersection Level of Service Avg. Avg. Intersection LOS Delay Crit. Crit (sec.) V/C -Delay (sec.) El Camino Real/Mission F 103.0 * * Road El Camino Real/ Arlington F 94.9 * * Drive El Camino Real/Hicke Blvd. C 17.0 0.58 20.9 El Camino Real/Kaiser B 11.7 0.46 12.7 Permanente drivewa El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive C 18.3 0.62 22.7 El Camino F 62.1 1.09 83.6 Real/Westborou h-Chestnut Westborough D 28.2 0.84 31.7 Blvd./Oran a/Camaratis Westborough Blvd. / Junipero D 27.4 0.70 29.3 Serra Blvd. Westborough Blvd./I-280 SB B 8.1 0.75 9.6 offram Hickey Blvd. /I-280 SB C 21.8 0.87 30.8 offram Hickey Blvd/I-280 NB D 32.0 0.92 40.0 offram Hickey Blvd./Junipero Serra C 24.0 0.55 26.9 Blvd. Hicke Blvd. /Hilton Ave. F 19.1 Hickey Blvd./Camaritas F XX * * Avenue Grand Ave. /Mission Blvd. C 11.7 1.11 6.3 Grand Avenue/Chestnut D 26.8 0.77 28.7 Avenue El Camino Real/Costco -- -- -- -- entrance/Mid eninsula El Camino Real/Hickey -- -- -- -- Blvd./McLean Drive Source: Rajappan & Meyer Notes LOS= Level of Service for signalized intersections V/C= volume to capacity ratio for unsignalized intersections Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 25 City of South San Francisco April 1999 *=not available =future intersection XX=delay exceeds limit Based on Table 6, the following intersections are presently (before construction of the proposed project) operating at unacceptable levels of service: • El Camino Real/Westborough Blvd./Chestnut Avenue (LOS F during PM peak hour); • El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS F during PM peak hour); • El Camino Real/Arlington Drive (LOS F during PM peak hour); • Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS F during the PM peak hour); • Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS F during PM peak hour). Two Congestion Management Plan (CMP) roadway segments are located in the project vicinity, State Route 82 between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard and I-280 between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard. The I-280 segment between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is operating at level of service F. The CMP level of service standard for this segment is LOS "E." According to the CMP guidelines, the 1997 reported LOS for this segment is LOS "F" without exemptions and LOS "A" with exemptions. LOS " A" is based upon the exclusion of interregional trips that do not originate from the vicinity of the segment or local jurisdiction. The exclusion is determined by C/CAG based on the biennial monitoring. If the LOS standard is met with the exclusion as determined by C/CAG, a deficiency plan is not required. El Camino Real between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard operates at an acceptable Level of Service B. The Background Condition describes the scenario wherein approved project trips are added to existing traffic counts. The impacts of a project are then determined by comparing the project and background conditions. Therefore, traffic volumes for background conditions include volumes from existing traffic counts, plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed projects. A list of the approved projects was obtained from the City of South San Francisco and is described below. The trip generation associated with these approved projects was obtained from the traffic reports. • Promenade Residential Subdivision • Mid Peninsula Housing Subdivision and Alta Loma Park • Chestnut Estates Subdivision • Mini-Mart addition to an Existing Fast Food Service • Southpark Residential Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 26 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Background condition traffic volumes at study intersections were obtained by adding the estimated traffic generated from approved projects to the existing traffic volumes. Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating levels at the study intersections under background conditions. Table 2shows the Background Condition level of service summary. The LOS for all study intersections would remain similar to the existing conditions. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 27 City of South San Francisco April 1999 h 0 U' ~ ~ u E .~ 3 as ~ C/~ W V O ~ ~ ~ O a b J ^^4 c O .''~i Y ~ ~ ~ m N H ~ ~' 0 0 0 v M N *-~ N~ M N .~ M A N N Z O ~., ~ ±+ U O U'1 (~ .-~ 00 M LA lA O 00 ~O M O~ M M M ~ to +-~ tp 10 M t!'1 .-~ .~ ~ ' jt ~F Z :4 ~ V M ,-~ 00 * * ~O ~ t0 •-~ 00 f~ 1~ 00 O~ l11 ~ O O O +~+ O O O O O O +~-~ O O U Z ~ ~ q~~ (ma ,) 00 O Lf1 O- N M ~D t0 ~ 0~ I~ .~ ^ OD M ~ ~ y Q ~ .-~ .-i .-1 1~ N N O N M N N ~ N ~ M v ~ y v m O wwumUu.ppmv~uLLwUO ~ m J ~ ~i '^ Q~ 1~ 1~ tD 1~ M ~ CO O O? ~,.~ f~ Q U A" N .ti N CO M N~ M~ N ~ N z ~ ~+U O+ T tp M ~' .~ Ln O lfl OD O+ ~~n.-~aovo~n~oNt O~c io o ~ z .- ooooo oco• O Z+ ! g1 tq~,~! 0 O~ O N M *-~ N C ,,,,~ OD O O ~ I~ 00 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ^ r Q O ~ -~ N -~ . -~ •~ ~ t0 N N~ N M N . O T , (~ o--~ x l1J o ~~umU~oomUOU~~.UO , J .v ~ a ~ p m ;gy ~ as '~ ~ ~,~~~EE aJ E ~o~c~>_ ~ ~ u ~ z ~ ~~ m ~ p m+ c ~ c +~ a~ ~~~ v v w d t ~ c ~ ~~ ~Q ~ ~C~ ~ = ~ ~• m~ a '~ w an v a~ ~o o OD ` ~ w ~~E~ On~pp OQ ~~Qc> w m •~a ~a~ ~ p Z ~ p aiSdSdf 0 ~c 0p Q E O C c ~ ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N J ~ 1 0 ~+ ~ N A G C -ai~a`3 ~ ~ ~o~asasasa~~~c`~i 0~J 0~! N W GJ N L L L ~j ~j N N G>1 7 7 N 4~7 ' ~ O' d' d' ~ D1 Of O~ . . . C C ~ a ~~ ~ C C C C C C~ ~ m m>> C C m • a¢'-•- • • ~ E E E E E C C E E ~~ >.>.>~>. ~ ~ r p f p 1 p f p ,y Y Y Y V V V V V Y ~ V d U U U lJ U~ R wwwww333=x===c7c9ww +-~ N M ~ 1A 10 1~ 00 01 O •~ N M ~ t!1 tp I~ O .r rl .r .r .~ .-~ ~ .~ .-1 V C ~, .. w ~ c 1y° e ^ W O L r ~ ~" i ~ ~ C ~' 1°a ~ a ~ ~o ~ III v ~o .; O Z _o i c c .~ C Again, many but not all of the study intersections are anticipated to operate at satisfactory levels under both existing and future conditions, without the proposed project. Exceptions include: • El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS B PM peak hour); • El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS F PM peak hour) • El Camino Real/Arlington Drive (LOS F during the PM peak hour) • Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS F PM peak hour); • Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS F PM peak hour). STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE A transportation or parking impact would be significant if: • if signalized intersection operations fall below a Level of Service of D or worse during peak hours of the day and if unsignalized operations fall below LOS E during peak hours of the day; • if traffic volumes at unsignalized intersections increase above Caltrans peak hour signal warrants; • if traffic volumes increase by more than 2% at intersections currently operating at unacceptable levels; • if there would be a substantial, demonstrable reduction in on- or off-street parking. • if barriers would be created to pedestrian, bicycle or public transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Roadway network To determine traffic impacts of the proposed project, peak hour trip generation from the proposed project was calculated based on standard generation rates published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE, Sixth Edition), including information gathered from similar Costco facilities. Peak hour trips were then distributed to local and regional streets based on consultations with City of South San Francisco staff. Refer to the full Traffic Analysis for details of anticipated trip generation and distribution. Near term traffic conditions Project trips were added to the Background Condition traffic to create the Project Condition forecasts. The levels of service for the study intersections under the Near- Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 29 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Term project conditions are provided in Table 3. The following intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service: • El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • El Camino Real/Arlington Drive (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour). Impact 4.3-1 (Near-Term Roadway Impacts)• Significant traffic impacts are anticipated at the following study area intersections: • El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • El Camino ReaUArlington Drive (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour). (Significant impacts and mitigation measures are required). These intersections are operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour. They are projected to operate at LOS F in the background condition, without the addition of project traffic. However, the addition of project traffic would increase traffic and associated delays by 2% or greater, resulting in a significant traffic impact. All other study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better). The LOS calculations for the near-term project conditions are provided in the Traffic Report Appendix. Mitieation Measure 4 3-1 (Near-Term Roadway Impacts)• The project developer shall provide a fair share financial contribution to the above intersections to fund necessary traffic signalization and roadway improvements to reduce potential impacts to aless-than-significant level. The amount and timing of improvements shall be determined by the South San Francisco Public Works Department. Intersection operations would improve to LOS "D" at the above intersections. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 30 City of South San Francisco April 1999 u ... ail 0 a a 0 V H Q wry 1.1 {~1 F r. z F p ~ ~p pp O~ N H m M ~ O 1/) A p J m m O m m m Y Y N n n ~ N m N A W VI ~ m P1, N i i ry .y N M M O C N V1 1~ i i ~ ti V1 ~ < U p V1 N~ N ti M M~ M Q N M~ y4 VI ~ V '+ O V1 N ~••~ O O~ pNq~ ~l~~pp O m O~ ~ n i i n 1N/1 b N~ n n m O~ ~O • i ti m n~ C 67 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~+ O O O ~ ~ ~'! ~ ti n O N w1 N .~ O Vf V1 V1 O AI ti V <~ N N ti '~ '~ .~r N N m N M N N ti N ~~ Z'i d ~ a ~f p ~ IV IL U m V Y. p p m U O p ~+- ~ U p m m s < ~ ~ ~p ~p 1~ N ~ m A .~ f O J m m O m m ~~ ~ y ` N C H n m T f~ N ~O P1 C ry W n N M ti M C N i i O M H M i i N O~ N ti p P 1 I f A $ g 'J a ~~ M ~o V7 O~ 1~ m po. M o 10 O~ m i • n Vf b w m n n 00 a b i i .~i m ~ M V~ G C C C C O O O G ~+ G O O 4 p ~~ O~ !~ O 1~ O ~+ N .~ N O ~O P'2 N ~ O n1 ,y H N N~ M ~ T ~ ti ~ a N N O N M N U < 1 f1 N _ ti ~ V m V 1L p p m U p O LL ti V O m m ~ ~ x ~ ~ T O~ f~ ~ M T O m O .~ P 7 N i • ..i N ti fV O~ O O ti ri i • ~ O ~ T ~ C < ~+ ~ . i M N ~ M P N M N N ~y ~ C U ~ m n07 M M w N~ w ~O ~O M {m/1 H w • M • i U U 7 w CD ~p T ~O OD 1~ n m O; V1 G O O '+ C G G O O C .~ C G 9 g_g11 O H m C N O~ N P1 40 ~O m n r1 n m M N m N N N ~ ti N ~ ~ ~ ^ O n n A . -' . i N M .r .•i m p 1L 1L U m U~ p p m U p U~ LL U p m < ~~ a n n .o n en ,o m o m M ~ i i N ti N m N ~ M P N i i ~ , (, O N M C O~ O~ ~ M T ~ N O N m ~ • • h V ~O OPD f~ INS m ~ N • ~ n ' , O O G ~+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~+ O 01 q_y1 ~y1 O O~ O 1~ M .+ N C „y OD O O .r ~ n m 1~ .~ m N m 1~ ~ ri fV Q T ~ 10 ' O O VI ~ ~~~~ N N N M N .+ N LL1 t~ O J IL 4. U m V tL O O m 0 0 0~~ U p d M Q ~ qcq ~ E E 3 d ~ ~ ~ qC ~ ~ ° a ~ ~ ' t ; ~ ~ t '° t gg8~~,~'c=< ~ ~~ N a m < va Q :~ ~ < ~ m v~ _ ~ ~ ~ C .' .e .e .a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E c T v v ~ CC y N C A x E A N N ~ r .~ ~ S Y ~ ~ ~tl rI if .1! ~tl ~ ~ c3 s 3 qq ,O ~ A A Y L L L ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ Y Y Y OC Y Oo 44 Q q Q ~ Q ' ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ .~ m .s t S i Se i ~ ~ ~ q q ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ C C U U ' A U U CJ U -y u'f u'i {~- 4! 41 W 3 3 3 S _ _ _ _ ~ ~ W W .+ N M P N ~O. 1~ m O~ w .~~+ .Ni .Mi w~ ~ ~ m ~x C A cg i C a W •~Q L O u C 0 w a CMP roadway segments As shown, under the Near-Term Project Condition, the I-280 segment between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service F. The CMP level of service standard for this segment is LOS "E". According to the CMP guidelines, the 1997 reported LOS for this segment is LOS "F" without exemptions and LOS "A" with exemptions. By adding the background and the project traffic the LOS would remain "F." The project would add more traffic to the already deficient roadway segment that would further increase congestion and travel delay. C/CAG requires the local jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan if the C/CAG biennial monitoring discovers that the standard has degraded from LOS "E" to LOS "F" after certain exclusions are taken from traffic counts such as interregional travel, traffic from freeway ramp metering, traffic from very low income housing, and others. The 1997 LOS "A" with exemptions is based upon the exclusion of interregional trips that do not originate from the vicinity of the segment or local jurisdiction. Based on the 1997 LOS monitoring report, it is possible that the C/CAG would determine that the LOS criteria for this segment with exclusions would be "A" or "B" and deficiency plan would not be required. El Camino Real between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is projected to operate at an .acceptable Level of Service B with the addition of project traffic. Impact 4 3-2 (Near-Term CMP Roadway Impacts): With appropriate exemptions granted by C/CAG, less-than-significant impacts would be expected along nearby freeway segments (less-than-significant impact) Long-term (Year 2010) analysis scenario For the long-term condition, the analysis identifies two scenarios: • Background Condition plus BART Traffic • Background Condition plus BART Traffic plus Project Traffic The long-term background condition, with BART traffic was created based on the following steps: 1) Year 2010 forecasted traffic volumes were provided by BART at El Camino Real & Hickey Boulevard Ext. /McLellan Drive and El Camino Real & New BART Access 1. These volumes are based on the "BART/SFO Extension Technical Memorandum on Traffic at the South San Francisco BART Station, October 29,1998." Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 32 City of South San Francisco April 1999 d V .~ a W ~ O ~ E E ~+ m Y V a -.. A~ Y ~~I, MF [''' O dE ~ ~" e o s a L~ l^ C O A Sp, ~l (y1 a O V1 O n O P N n .wn ^ 1~1 1'NI ^ N f Q m m Q O m ~ m ~ r~r~~ lZt {~~1 V u VI m N m N O N w N N ~O ~ N ~'1 P Y1 f f m~ YI O O f M ~ w N N r ~ N IM~ ^r N IP' = Q . i f . f • ~ooo oo ~ooo 000 o }};; O di ry N ~D 1~ P ~O O m M P P m P N M ~D m ~ Si n ~ ^ ~ r n .P. n n rNiN. ~ m n ~ ~ ~ LL LL U m m W O O m 0 0 0 LL LL U LL U U m a ~ ~ o ^ ~n ~o N ~. ~ n ~ ^ r S ~ m m O O m O O p~ ~1 (V~ Q ~ O VI m N m O~ O. w m r p~ O_ m N ~+ m Y1 O f m~ ti f f ' Ni ~ b 1M. N.. N wm1 f N 1 f . f . N ~ p ~ p gp pp p • • CO ~ ~ ~ ~ OD a 07 P P • • ~ ~ ~ ~ P C G G C C w G G O O O O ~+ w G G G ~ ~ ~j yy Q m O 1~ n O~ P w f N P ~D ~0.7~ N ~D Imff ~ N ~ ^ N N N 0 ~ ~ ~ N P ~ N ~ 1 O V 1'f . f 'f . + 10 •. ~ ~1 1 p J LL LL U m m W O O m U 0 0 LL LL U LL m U m ~ yy d U O~ N P f N ~D O ~O ~O f~ N1 n (PryV1 O ~D • f ~ w .wi ~ N w1 .wi N~ PM1 • f ^ m N ti • M I~ fP~f f O~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ • • ~ O ' YI G C C C C C C G G C C C g yy y~1 O Vf pO~ n O~ 1D N Y1 N O~ o w Q1 m^ 1D o M N O m w m O N N~ .fir N N~~ .M+ ~ 1 .~+ ~ P P 1~n[ O J LL LL U m m W O O m 0 0 0 LL LL U LL U m p~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ U a n n ~o n a ,o m o a n n • O ~ N Pf P O G ~D • s' m . . N N m wf N P wf T N ~ N ~ o00 ~oooooa .:o ~j G O. O 1~ M w N P r m O O w xx I~ OD ~G . m ^ 07 .. N f w x O ~ w n YI w ... w . ~p N N N PI N X N N O J LL LL U m U LL O O m 0 0 0 LL LL U 0 A Q w E ~ ~ ; R 6 VC C £ O V I ~ O + + ~ \ ~ Y ? ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ` ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` C 2 N ~ ~ a a a~~~~ W m~ E N N i z ~ w x ~ a a a a a ~ a a a a a e o a a a t' a a ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ g ~ oe a c a c ac gg g gg~ ~ U° ~ ~ 3 N P1 f w 10 I~ m O~ ~ .y . ~ .P. .Ni .m. .n. w O, B a .~ c L~ O C O 01 C ~p U C wa w° awe Table 4. Long-Term Level of Service Summary Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 33 City of South San Francisco April 1999 2) Turning movement percentages were calculated based on the BART Airport Extension EIR (Appendix A, BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, September 1994) at El Camino Real &Westborough/Chestnut, El Camino Real & Hickey Boulevard, Westborough & Junipero Serra Boulevard, Grand Avenue & Chestnut Avenue, Grand Avenue & Mission Road. 3) Existing minor street volumes were increased to year 2010 by using growth rate of 0.5%/annum. 4) Year 2010 traffic volumes at El Camino Real & Hickey Boulevard Ext./McLellan Drive and El Camino Real & New BART Access 1 volumes were carried over to the study intersections using BART EIR turning movement percentages. Project traffic was added to the long-term background condition traffic to create the long-term project condition. The levels of service for the study intersections under the long-term project condition scenarios are shown in Table 4. As shown, the level of service at the intersection of El Camino Real/Westborough Blvd.-Chestnut would improve from LOS "F" to "E." This would be due to the significant reduction in southbound left turn movements at El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard caused by the new connection of Hickey Blvd. Extension between El Camino Real and Mission Road. There would also be some trip reduction along El Camino Real due to diversion of commute traffic to the BART stations between Colma and the airport. Impact 4.3-3 (Long-Term Roadway Impacts): The following intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable level of service with and without the addition of project traffic, since the proposed project would add 2% or greater traffic to these roadways: • El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS "E" during the PM peak hour); • El Camino ReaUMission Road (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • El Camino ReaUArlington Drive (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour); • Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour). ~ (significant impact) Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 34 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (long-term roadway impacts): The following traffic and roadway improvements shall be installed as part of project construction. The proposed Costco facility shall be responsible for a fair share of the improvements listed below. • Add an additional left-turn lane only for the north leg of the intersection and add an exclusive right-turn lane on the east leg of the intersection.. The LOS will improve to "D" during the PM peak hour; • Upgrade the signal at the Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue intersection for a left-turn protected phase, and re-stripe eastbound and westbound Chestnut Avenue to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, and a shared through and right-turn lane. LOS will improve to D during the evening peak hour. CMP roadway segments Under the Long-term Project Condition, the I-280 segment between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service F. The CMP level of service standard for this segment is LOS "E". According to the CMP guidelines, the 1997 reported LOS for this segment is LOS "F" without exemptions and LOS "A" with exemptions. By adding the background and the project traffic, the LOS would remain "F." The project would add more traffic to the already deficient roadway segment that would further increase congestion and travel delay. C/CAG requires the local jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan if the C/CAG biennial monitoring discovers that the standard has degraded from LOS "E" to LOS "F," after certain exclusions are taken from traffic counts such as interregional travel, traffic from freeway ramp metering, traffic from very low income housing, and others. The 1997 LOS "A", with exemptions, is based upon the exclusion of interregional trips that do not originate from the vicinity of the segment or local jurisdiction. Based on the 1997 LOS monitoring report, it is possible that the C/CAG would determine that the LOS criteria for this segment with exclusions would be "A" or "B", and a deficiency plan would not be required. El Camino Real between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is projected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service B. Imvact 4.3-4 (Long-Term CMP Roadway Impacts): With appropriate exemptions granted by C/CAG, less-than-significant impacts would be expected along nearby freeway segments under long-term conditions (less-than-significant impact). Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 35 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 (Long-Term CMP Roadway Impacts): Prepare a CMP Deficiency Plan for I-280 between the Hickey and Westborough interchanges unless the C/CAG determines that the LOS criteria for the segment with exclusions would be LOS "A" or "B" and a deficiency plan would not be required. Adherence to the above mitigation measure would reduce CMP roadway impacts to a level of less-than-significant. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 36 City of South San Francisco April 1999 4.4 AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This EIR section describes the impacts of the proposed project on local and regional air quality. [Note: The information contained in this section is based on an air quality analysis prepared by Donald Ballanti, Certified Meteorologist. The full text of this report is available in the South San Francisco Planning Division]. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Air Pollution Climatology The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightest on the average in fall and winter. Pollutants can be diluted by mixing in the atmosphere both vertically and horizontally. Vertical mixing and dilution of pollutants is often suppressed by inversion conditions, when a warm layer of air traps cooler air close to the surface. During the summer, inversions are generally elevated above ground level, but are present over 90 percent of the time in both the morning and afternoon. In winter, surface-based inversions dominate in the morning hours, but frequently dissipate by afternoon. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build up. Ambient Air Quality Standards Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 5 Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 37 City of South San Francisco April 1999 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 6 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM10. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently announced new national air quality standards for ground-level ozone and for fine Particulate Matter. The existing 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 PPM will be phased out and replaced by an 8- hour standard of 0.08 PPM. New national standards for fine Particulate Matter (diameter 2.5 microns or less) have also been established for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. Although currently in effect, the planning process to determine compliance with these new standards and the development of control programs to meet these standards, if needed, will not be complete until after the year 2000. Ambient Air Quality The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality at several locations within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The monitoring sites closest to the project site are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City to the south. Table 7 summarizes exceedances of State and Federal standards at these two sites. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 38 City of South San Francisco April 1999 ~+ U a 0 a :: ads H ~ ~ ~ vi ~ t0v °~ n.~ Wv o c ~ ~ ~ ,s ~~ ~ ~~ o~ ~ ~° ~ ~yp $ v ~~ c mymt0 a E ~ i ~ ~,~ o_a ~~ w gy~~ o~~ ~ ~'S L $ _m ~ a~o ~c ~ ~ ; W~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S nW ~ a W W- ~ a $ E ~~ ~~ o E~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ v ~e ~ ~~ m ~ 3 ~ O ~~' ~t m ~ ~ ` ~ E f a ~ tT ~ r m E c o ~ a ~ '~~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ c y o ~ ~~ ~ ~ Zai o o ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~f ~ C ~ C ~ p a Yp ~ fT 's ~' ~ ff W ~ ~ c. g~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ a~ c ~ _ .. ..~..~.8 . ~ .~. .t 5 m m~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~° ~ -~ ~ ~ ~. ~ 8~s °° ~ . ~$ 8 ~ .~~ ~ °~ 's p 8 8~ '~ O ~ n ~ m L m Wt~i ~ ~ ~~ $ ~ c~ °~ ~ . ~i `~ ~ L '~~~ ~{ ~ ~~ ~$ ~ ~ , h ~ ~~ ~ o W a ~ aS ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~8 ~ ~ . a c . , c m ~ x o o ~ O off. ~ U~ ~ zG ~ a Table 6. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal State Tlme Primary Standard Standard Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM 8-Hour 0.08 PPM - Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM 1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 PPM - 1-Hour - 0.25 PPM Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 PPM - 24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM 1-Hour - 0.5 PPM PM,o Annual 50 Ng/m3 30 Ng/m3 24-Hour 150 pg/rn3 50 Ng/m3 PM25 Annual 15 Ng/m' -- 24-Hour 65 /m3 - Lead 30-Day Avg. - 1.5 Ng/m3 Month Avg. 1.5 m3 - PPM =Parts per Million Ng/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter Table 7. Summary of Air Quality Data: San Francisco and Redwood City Pollutant Standard Monitoring Days Exceeding Standard in: Site 1995 1996 1997 Ozone Federal 1- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood C' 1 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 0 Redwood Ci 5 1 0 Carbon State/Federal San Francisco 0 0 0 Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood City 0 0 0 PM,o Federa124- San Francisco 0 0 0 Hour Redwood Ci 0 0 0 PM,o State 24- San Francisco 0 2 0 Hour Redwood Ci 0 0 2 Table 7 shows that most of the ambient air quality standards are met in the project area with the exception of ozone and PM10. Prior to 1992, violations of the carbon monoxide standards were also recorded within the air basin. Of the three pollutants known to at times exceed the state and federal standards in the project area, two are regional pollutants. Both ozone and PM-10 are considered regional pollutants in that concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Thus, the data shown in Table 7 for ozone and PM10 provide a good characterization of levels of these pollutants on the project site. Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant, i.e., high concentrations are normally only found near sources. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes. The data shown in Table 7 for carbon monoxide are not necessarily representative of concentrations that would be found near the proposed project site. Consequently, concentrations of carbon monoxide have been estimated using a computer simulation model that predicts concentrations based on information on roadway locations, traffic volumes and traffic conditions. Attainment Status and Regional Air Quality Plans The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas". Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-attainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The Bay Area currently has attained all federal standards. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed reclassifying the Bay Area from "maintenance area" to non-attainment for ozone based on recent violations of the federal standards at several locations in the air basin. This would reverse the air basin's reclassification to "maintenance area" for ozone in 1995. Reclassification would require an update to the region's federal air quality plan. Recent revisions to the national ambient standards for ozone and particulate matter have no immediate effect on federal non-attainment planning. Existing ozone and particulate matter designations will remain in effect until U.S.E.P.A establishes new designations based on data from 1997, 1998 and 1999. No new controls will be required with respect to the new standards until after the year 2002. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 42 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Under the California Clean Air Act, San Mateo County is anon-attainment area for ozone and PM10. The County is either attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. The California Clean Air Act requires local air pollution control districts to prepare air quality attainment plans. These plans must provide for district-wide emission reductions of five percent per year averaged over consecutive three-year periods or if not, provide for adoption of "all feasible measures on an expeditious schedule." The Act also grants air districts explicit statutory authority to adopt indirect source regulations and transportation control measures, including measures to encourage or require the use of ridesharing, flexible work hours or other measures which reduce the number or length of vehicle trips. Sensitive Receptors The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be found. These land uses include residences, schools playgrounds, child care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Sensitive receptors near the project site would include residences north and south of the site and Kaiser Hospital southeast the site. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Current CEQA Guidelines provide that a project would have a significant air quality impact: if would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air plan. • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. CEQA Guidelines provide that, when available the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make determinations of significance. The BAAQMD has established the following impact criteria. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 43 City of South San Francisco April 1999 • A significant impact on local air quality is defined as an increase in carbon monoxide concentrations that causes a violation of the most stringent ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide (20 ppm for the one-hour averaging period, 9.0 ppm for the eight-hour averaging period). A significant impact on regional air quality fora "local plan", such as a redevelopment plan, is defined as inconsistency between the local plan, and the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP). According to the BAAQMD, the following criteria must be satisfied for a local plan to be determined to be consistent with the CAP and not have a significant air quality impact: • The local plan should be consistent with the CAP Population and VMT assumptions. This is demonstrated if the population growth over the planning period will not exceed the values included in the current CAP. • The local plan demonstrates reasonable efforts to implement the Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) included in the CAP that identify cities as implementing agencies. The BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM lo. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-significant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Three potential air quality impacts are identified in this Initial Study: short term construction impacts, long term operational impacts and regional impacts. Short Term Construction Impacts Construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-waterbase paints, thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 44 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Impact 4.4-1 (construction impacts): The effects of project construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties (potentially significant impact). Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 (construction impacts): The following measures are recommended, based on BAAQMD standards, to reduce construction impacts to a level that is less-than-significant. The following construction practices should be required during all phases of construction on the project site: • Water all active construction areas as weeded; • Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; • Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Local impacts On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. The CALINE-4 computer simulation model was applied to five intersections near the project site. Model runs were made for existing traffic conditions and with the background and project traffic increases. The intersections modeled were selected using the BAAQMD criteria for modeling, i.e., Level of Service D, E, or F. The model results were used to predict the maximum 1-and 8-hour concentrations, corresponding to the 1- and 8-hour averaging times specified in the state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. The CALINE-4 model and the Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 45 City of South San Francisco April 1999 assumptions made in its use for this project are described in Attachment 1 of the complete air quality analysis. Table 8 shows the results of the CALINE-4 analysis for the peak 1-hour and 8-hour traffic periods in parts per million (PPM). The 1-hour values are to be compared with the federal 1-hour standard of 35 PPM and the state standard of 20 PPM. The 8- hour values in Table 8 are to be compared with the state and federal standard of 9 PPM. Table 8 shows that concentrations are predicted not to exceed the ambient standards with or without the proposed project. The additional project traffic would increase carbon monoxide concentrations by no more than 0.4 Parts Per Million at any of the intersections analyzed. Project impacts on local carbon monoxide concentrations are considered less-than-significant. Impact 4.4-2 (local air quality impacts): Incremental increases in air pollution could be anticipated with the construction of the proposed project, however, such increases would be below the standard of air quality significance as established by the BAAQMD (less-than-significant impact). Permanent regional impacts Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay air basin. Regional emissions associated with project vehicle use has been calculated using the URBEMIS7G emission program. The methodology used in estimating vehicular emissions is described in Attachment 2 contained in the complete text of the traffic analysis. The incremental daily emission increase associated with the project is identified in Table 9 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors of ozone) and PM10• Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 46 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Table 8. Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected Intersections Intersection Existing Background Background Background + Scen. A 1- +Scen. B 1-Hr 8-Hr, 1-Hr 8-Hr Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr Westborough/ 12.6 8.3 12.9 8.5 13.0 8.6 13.0 8.6 Chestnut/El Camino Camaritas/Orange/ 9.7 6.2 9.7 6.3 10.0 6.4 10.0 6.4 Westborough Junipero Serra/ 9.5 6.1 9.6 6.1 9.7 6.2 9.7 6.3 Westborough I-280 NB Offramp / 10.5 6.8 10.6 6.9 11.0 7.1 11.0 7.2 Imperial/Hickey Grand / 7.4 4.7 7.5 4.7 7.6 4.8 7.6 4.8 Chestnut Most Stringent 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 Standard Source: Donald Ballanti The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established threshold of significance for ozone precursors and PM10 of 80 pounds per day. Project-related emissions from vehicles are well above these thresholds of significance for ozone precursors, so project impacts on regional air quality would be significant. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 47 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Table 9. Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Reactive Nitrogen PM10 Organic Oxides Gases Project Scenario A 92.4 163.9 52.1 Project Scenario B 104.4 183.0 58.1 BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0 Threshold Source: Donald Ballanti Impact 4.4-3 (permanent regional air quality impacts :Construction of the proposed project would exceed the maximum BAAQMD air quality standards for permanent regional impacts (significant impact). The location and character of the proposed project limits the potential for reducing regional air quality impacts. The traffic mitigation measures identified in the traffic impact analysis for the project identifies roadway and intersection improvements that would avoid congestion and would, in turn, result in a small reduction in air emissions. Available air quality mitigation strategies for commercial development focus on work trips, which comprise a very small fraction of total project trips, and thus would not be effective. The big-box discount character of the project also makes impractical any strategies to have patrons use transit, walk or bicycle to the proposed facility. Parking restrictions are impractical unless imposed regionally, and have the potential to impact adjacent neighborhoods. Mixed land-use strategies are employed in Scenario B. Close proximity of the Costco facility and a shopping center has been assumed to reduce trip generation from these two land uses by 10%. This reduction is already reflected in Table 14, and no further reduction can be assumed. In summary, there are no effective and feasible mitigation measures that can reduce project impacts for either Scenario A or B to a level that is below the BAAQMD's significance thresholds. Project impacts on regional air quality would be significant and unavoidable. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 48 City of South San Francisco April 1999 4.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES This section of the EIR deals with potential soil, groundwater and structural contamination. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site was used for storage and distribution of goods for the Macy's department store chain. The warehouse building was constructed in the late-1960's. As part of the project, the existing building is slated for demolition and removal. construction equipment storage and maintenance for a number of years. Surface and subsurface soil investigations were recently conducted the firms of Krazan and Associates and Kleinfelder, Inc. The purpose of the analyses was to determine if significant levels of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials are present on the site. The Kleinfelder Inc. Report, entitled "Environmental Investigation Report, Former Macy's El Camino Center, 1556 El Camino Real, South San Francisco" completed November 25, 1997, is available for review at the South San Francisco Planning Division office during normal business hours The environmental site analyses identified the presence of TRPH (Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons), TPH-d (Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons, Diesel) and TPH-mo (Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons) within site soils and within groundwater under the site. These are attributable to previous railroad and trucking operations on the site. Although a vehicle fueling station was previously located on the site, no evidence of a leaking underground fuel tank were found by the environmental investigators. Under the auspices of a site remediation plan approved by the San Mateo County Health Services Agency (1993), contaminated soils were removed from the property as was the underground tank. Office buildings constructed by the previous which contained asbestos, which was removed by a licensed contractor. Finally, a groundwater monitoring program was developed and implemented to ensure minimal contamination of the underground aquifer. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project would be considered to result in a significant impact if it would directly or indirectly contribute to a potential public health hazard or involve the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the project area. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 49 City of South San Francisco April 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Based on a preliminary site assessment, the site contains potentially significant hazardous materials. Impact 4.5-1 (Hazardous Materials): The project site has been determined to be contaminated. The Environmental Site Assessment document (Kleinfelder, 1997) recommends that the project developer contact the San Mateo County Department of Health Services to determine appropriate site remediation, if any, is required (potentially significant impact). The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential hazardous materials impacts to alevel fless-than-significance: Mitigation Measure 4 5-1 (Hazardous Materials): Prior to commencement of demolition activities on the site, the project developer shall contact the San Mateo County Health Department for site clearances with regard to identified potentially hazardous materials on the site. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 50 City of South San Francisco April 1999 4.6 AESTHETICS AND LIGHT AND GLARE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Aesthetic impacts would include obstruction of views and vistas or the creation of an aesthetically offensive view to the public. The potential effects of new light and glare sources are also addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site was previously developed with a warehouse building which had been closed for a period of time. The adjacent parking lot had not been used and was poorly maintained and minimal landscaping was provided in either the parking lot or adjacent to El Camino. The warehouse building was recently demolished. A temporary construction facility has been located on the project site as part of the BART southerly extension to San Francisco International Airport Views north of the site are of a mobile home park and vehicle storage yard. To the west, a new subdivision is under construction, with a large landscaped setback adjacent to El Camino. Amulti-story hospital has been constructed south of the site adjoining El Camino. To the east, distant views are available of a cemetery within the City of Colma. Major views within this portion of the community are towards San Bruno Mountain to the north. STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE A significant adverse impact would result if: a) there is a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; b) the proposed project would significantly block a vista or scenic highway; c) substantial new sources of light or glare would "spill over" onto adjacent properties or roadways. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASUSRES Approval of the proposed project would have a minor effect on the aesthetic quality of the site, since the proposed use of the site is similar in size and scale with the previous use Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 51 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Impact 4.6-1 Aesthetic Change of the Sitel: Implementation of the proposed project is expected to have a minor and less-than-significant impact to on-site aesthetics, since the proposed use is similar to the previous use (less-than- significant). Impact 4.6-2 (Views and Vistasl: Since the size and scale of the proposed Costco warehouse building is similar to the recently demolished building on the site, less-than-significant impacts would be expected with regard to blockage of views, or interference with views or vistas from El Camino Real (less-than-significant). Impact 4.6-3 (Light and Glarel: Implementation of the proposed project would induce new sources of light and glare into El Camino Real and perhaps adjoining properties, primarily from new parking lot and building security lighting (potentially significant) Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 (Light and Glarel: A lighting plan shall be approved for the project by both the Planning Division and Police Departments to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut- off lenses to ensure that no spill over of unwanted light onto adjacent properties or streets shall occur. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 will reduce potential light and glare impacts to a level of less than significance. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 52 City of South San Francisco April 1999 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed project which have the potential of achieving project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through comparison of these alternatives to the preferred project, the advantages of each can be weighed and considered by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA Guidelines require a range of alternatives "governed by the rule of reason" and require the EIR to set forth a range of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives selected for analysis in this document include: • Alternative 1: "No Project" (required by CEQA to be considered). • Alternative 2: Multi-Family development on the site. • Alternative 3: Retail commercial development on the site Alternatives are described and evaluated below. 5.1 No Project CEQA requires an analysis of a "no project" alternative. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the existing vacant lot would continue to remain vacant and no development of any kind would occur. This alternative would avoid the range of environmental impacts described in this document, including: Earth and Geotechnical: No excavation, grading or related impacts would occur, nor would there be anticipated impacts related with exposing building improvements, employees and visitors to the potential of seismic hazards. Land Use: The project site would remain vacant and would not generate employment within the community would nor would tax revenues accrue the City of South San Francisco. • Transportation, parking and circulation: Existing traffic patterns would continue as currently found. There would be no traffic generation from the project site. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 53 City of South San Francisco April 1999 • Air quality: No major increases in construction-related, local or permanent regional impacts would occur. Hazardous Material: Clean up of hazardous materials conditions on the site would likely occur over a number of years since no immediate incentives would be provided remediation of the site would occur. Aesthetics, light and glare: There would be no sources of light and glare from the site 5.2 Alternative 2: Multi-Family Residential The second alternative assumes that the site would be rezoned to the R-2-H Medium Density Multiple Family District. This District allows a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. With a site size of 15 acres, a total of 225 dwellings could be constructed. Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include: • Earth and Geotechnical: It is anticipated that the same if not more extensive grading would be required to accommodate proposed buildings, parking areas and recreational amenities that would be associated with amulti-family development. • Land Use: The City's General Plan Land Use Designation would need to be changed and the site rezoned to accommodate proposed multi-family development. • Transportation, parking and circulation: There would be less peak hour and total traffic compared with the proposed project. • Air quality: Fewer long-term, permanent air quality impacts would result from this alternative than the proposed project, primarily because of fewer trips associated with the project. Short-term construction air quality impacts would be the same as the proposed project, however. • Hazardous Material: Clean up of hazardous materials conditions on the site would likely be the same as the proposed project. • Aesthetics, light and glare: Less of an impact regarding light and glare would be expected, since light standards typically are lower for residential complexes than major commercial developments. The same or a lesser impact regarding blockage of views would result in comparison with the proposed project. This alternative does not meet the project objective of maximizing tax revenues to the City or increasing employment opportunities within the community. It would therefore not likely represent the highest and best use of the site. Alternative 5.2 may result in potentially significant noise impacts with residential construction, Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 54 City of South San Francisco April 1999 since there would be a permanent population on the site. No noise impacts are anticipated with the proposed project.. 5.3 Alternative 3: Retail Commercial Development The third alternative assumes development of a strip commercial center on the site. Such a complex typically has one story with surface parking in front of retail uses. With a floor Area Ratio of 0.25 (typical of a strip retail center), the estimated amount of development would be 163,350, approximately the same as the Costco proposal. Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include: • Earth and Geotechnical: It is anticipated that the same amount of grading and excavation would be required to accommodate strip commercial center on the site. • Land Use: Approximately the same impacts would result with this alternative as would be experienced with the proposed project. • Transportation, parking and circulation: There would be somewhat less peak hour and total traffic compared with the proposed project. • Air quality: The same air quality impacts would likely result, with potentially less of a long term, permanent regional impact due to less traffic. • Hazardous Material: Clean up of hazardous materials conditions on the site would likely be the same as the proposed project. • Aesthetics, light and glare: The same impacts would occur. with a typical commercial development as would with a warehouse type retail complex. This alternative does not meet the project objectives since it would not represent the highest site utilization as would the proposed project and would return a lesser amount of tax and other revenues to the City of South San Francisco. 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126 (d) (4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. For the project analyzed in this EIR, the No Project alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, since none of the anticipated environmental impacts described in Section 4.0 would occur, primarily traffic and air quality impacts. However, the No Project alternative would not meet the project objectives to facilitate the highest and best utilization of the site, to increase local employment opportunities and increasing local tax and other revenues to the City.. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 55 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Neither of the other two alternatives, Alternatives 5.2 or 5.3, would result in environmental impacts significantly lower than the Proposed Project. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 56 City of South San Francisco April 1999 6.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects This section of the DEIR addresses the potential long-term effects of implementing the proposed project, as required by CEQA. 6.1 Short-Term Uses v. Long-Term Productivity Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity CEQA mandates that all EIRs consider the relationship between short- term use of resources, such as land for development purposes, versus the long-term benefits of allowing the subject property to remain as undeveloped open space. The relationship between short-term use of environmental resources and the maintenance of long-term productivity is often one of trade-off, or of balancing social, economic, environmental and similar concerns over time. In some instances, a relatively short-term benefit may have adverse effects, with the possibility that future generations may be burdened with unwarranted social or economic costs. The opposite situation, in which .long-term benefits occur at the expense of short- term impacts may also occur. The ultimate decision as to the unique balance of factors lies with the South san Francisco Planning Commission. The project under consideration is the proposed approval of a development plan for a Costco wholesale facility and associated gasoline service station. Short-term impacts anticipated to be associated with the project would include construction-related noise and emission of dust related to grading and site preparation and erosion. Potential long-term impacts would include grading and excavation, exposure of additional people and property to seismic risk, increased traffic and air quality emissions, increased sources of light from the site. As demonstrated in Section 4 of the DEIR, with the exception of long-term cumulative regional air emissions, each of the above are considered less-than- significant impacts or can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level.. 6.2 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ~gnificant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Construction of the proposed project would indirectly result in irretrievable commitment and use of energy and non-renewable resources for construction and operation of the future warehouse and service station use, including such resources as sand and gravel, lumber and other forest products, asphalt, petrochemicals and Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 57 City of South San Francisco April 1999 metals. The level and amount of commitment of such resources is commensurate with similar development projects undertaken in the Bay Area and throughout California and the nation. 6.3 Significant Irreversible Impacts This section of the DEIR identifies significant environmental effects of the proposed project which cannot be mitigated using all feasible mitigation measures. The one such impact identified is long-term, cumulative regional air quality emissions. 6.4 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project All EIRs must consider the potential growth inducement of projects. A project is generally considered to be growth inducing if it will foster economic or population growth or will cause the construction of new housing, either directly or indirectly, within a given geographic area. Projects which remove obstacles to population growth are also deemed to be growth inducing. Increases in population may strain existing community services or utility systems, so consideration must be given to this impact. The characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other growth activities which could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively, must also be discussed. Approval of the proposed project could be considered growth inducing, since additional employees, visitors and associated vehicular traffic could be attracted to the site. However, the proposed project represents a relocation of the same type of use from the San Bruno Costco facility, which is anticipated to be closed after the proposed Costco is opened. Also, the type of use proposed on the site would be consistent with the City's General Plan and -zoning .ordinance. Finally, the site represents redevelopment of a previously developed site with properties on all sides of the site fully developed so that no additional commercial uses would be attracted to the site. 6.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those which taken individually may be minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed development projects and planned but not built projects, have the potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe the severity of the impacts and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the discussion of cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need not be as detailed as that provided for the project alone. Cumulative impacts may be addressed using one of two methods: Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 58 City of South San Francisco April 1999 a listing of past, present and reasonable anticipated future and probable projects, within or adjacent to the community containing the project site, which could produce related or cumulative impacts; or a summary of projections contained in the adopted General Plan or related planning documents which evaluated regional environmental impacts of a number of projects within a given geographic area. For purposes of this EIR the second approach has been chosen to address cumulative impacts. Copies of the City of South San Francisco General Plan are available at the Planning Division, 315 Maple Street, South San Francisco CA. A summary of expected cumulative indirect impacts follows. Impacts are generally considered indirect since the project itself will not directly cause new growth within the project area, although the purpose of the project is to induce redevelopment of blighted properties. • Earth and Geotechnical: Grading and excavation would be required for new construction and for infrastructure improvements. This is not considered a cumulative impact. Short-term soil erosion during site construction could be considered a cumulative impact; however, adherence to Best Management Practices and erosion and sedimentation plans as required by the City of San South San Francisco would ensure that no cumulative earth-related impacts occur • Land Use: Land use impacts would not be considered a significant cumulative impact, since the proposed development would generally comply with the type and intensity of land use envisioned in the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. • Transportation, parking and circulation: Cumulative traffic and transportation impacts have been addressed in Section 4.3 of the EIR. • Air quality: Cumulative air quality impacts have been addressed in Section 4.4 of the EIR. • Hazardous Material: No cumulative impacts are anticipated with regard to hazardous materials. • Aesthetics and light and glare: Although localized impacts to aesthetics could result from implementing the proposed project, such impacts are not expected to be cumulative. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 59 City of South San Francisco April 1999 6.6 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to ales-than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the underlying project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the project without significantly reducing or eliminating an adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the information in the record. Regional, long-term cumulative air quality emissions have been identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 60 City of South San Francisco April 1999 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7.1 Persons and Organizations EIR Preparers The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document. Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager and principal author) Situ?? Rajappan & Meyer (traffic analysis) Donald Ballanti (air quality) Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics) City of South San Francisco Staff James Harnish, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner Richard Harmon, Sr. Engineering Technician 7.2 References The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in the preparation of this DEIR. Kleinfelder Inc., Geotechnical Investigation Report, South San Francisco Costco, February, 1999. City of South San Francisco, General Plan Background Report, September, 1997. City of South San Francisco, General Plan Text and Map. City of South San Francisco, Zoning Ordinance. Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 61 City of South San Francisco April 1999 8.0 Appendices Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 62 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Appendix 8.1 Initial Study Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 63 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Costco Project Initial Study City of South San Francisco General Purpose and Scope of Environmental Review This Initial Study document has been prepared to determine whether or not approval of the proposed Costco development project (the project) would have a significant effect on the environment and to identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce such impacts to a level of less than significance. The proposed project involves converting the closed Macy's warehouse distribution center to a Costco wazehouse facility on approximately 15 acres of land. Environmental Procedures This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act and complies with the rules, regulations and procedures of CEQA as adopted by the City of South San Francisco. Lead Agency/Contact Persons In accord with the Sections 15050 and 15367 of Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, following is the Lead Agency and contact person for this project. Ms. Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Mapleand Avenue South San Francisco CA 94083 (650) 877 8535 Responsible/Trustee Agencies Responsible agencies aze those which have discretionary approval over one or more actions in the ultimate construction of the proposed project. Trustee agencies aze state agencies having discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over material resources affected by the proposed project. Implementation of the project may require review or action by one or more of the following Responsible or Trustee agencies: State Water Resources Control Boazd (General Construction Permit) San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency (consistency with Congestion Management Plan) Encroachment permit from Caltrans (work within Caltrans right-of-way along El Camino Real). Project Location and Context The proposed project site is located within the northerly portion of South San Francisco, on the east side of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. The street address of the property is 1556 El Camino Real. Assessor's Parcel Number for the site include 010-212-070. The site encompasses approximately 26 acres of land and is relatively flat a gradual slope to the east towards Colma Creek. Surrounding uses include a recreational vehicle storage yard to the north, Colma Creek and a cemetery to the east within the City of Colma and vacant lands to the south. A new residential development is under construction to the west, on the west side of El Camino Real, consisting of 174 single family dwellings and 34 townhomes. Project Description The proposed project includes demolishing the existing structure on the site, which consists of a one-story concrete tilt-up building of approximately 382,000 square feet and associated surface parking improvements. Anew warehouse distribution center would then be built on the site, to be owned (confirm) and operated by Costco Wholesale. A Costco warehouse sales facility is planned to be located on the northwest corner of the site. This building would include approximately 147,000 gross square feet of floor area in a single story configuration, with primary interior uses being administrative offices, a central receiving area and the wholesale portion of the building. The building would be used for wholesaling of goods and services, including food products, clothing, personal care, household and electronic goods, automotive supplies and similar products for resale, commercial and personal use. Sales would also occur to individuals who are members of selected employee and related groups. Hours of operation would be from 10 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. Another component of the project would be an automobile gasoline service station to be constructed in conjunction with the warehouse facility. The gas station would be located along the easterly side of the site near the 60,000 square foot building with use of the gas station restricted to Costco members only. Four pump islands with canopies would be built with 8 self- service pumps installed. A maximum of 16 vehicles could be refueled at one time. Hours of operation for the gas station would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days per week. New underground tanks would be installed as part of the gas station. Access to the site would be provided by two driveways from El Camino, one proposed to be located along the northerly property line the other along the southerly site property line. The southerly drive would also serve future land uses south of Costco. Approximately 736 on-site parking spaces would be provided. Associated improvements would also consist of minor site grading, construction of landscaping and irrigation systems within the parking lots and adjacent to buildings, installation of utility upgrades, including but not limited to water, sewer, drainage and telecommunication improvements, construction of identification signs and installation of new site lighting. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 2 Costco project March 1999 To implement the project, the following land use entitlements have been requested from the City of South San Francisco: A Use Permit, to be acted upon by the South San Francisco Planning Commission; Type C Sign Permit; Site History The project site was used previously used by Macys's depaztment store as a regional wazehouse and distribution center. Due to changing business practices, the facility was no longer needed as a warehouse and was sold. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 3 Costco project March 1999 Agency Approvals Approvals, review and/or permits required for the proposed project include, but aze not necessazily limited to the following, in addition to the requested City entitlements. • Adoption of this Negative Declazation; • Issuance grading, sewer, stormwater and building permits by City of South San Francisco; • Encroachment permits from Caltrans to allow new driveways along El Camino Real; • A Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that storm water runoff from the site complies with surface water quality standards; • Encroachment permit from San Mateo County Flood Control District to discharge additional quantities of stormwater into Colma Creek; • Air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to dispense gasoline from the proposed auto service station; • Review by Congestion Management Agency to ensure consistency with the County-wide Congestion Management Plan (CMP). City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 4 Costco project March 1999 Environmental Checklist Form The following two sections of this document evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project. The environmental checklist, approved by the City of South San Francisco and consistent with CEQA Guidelines, has been used to focus this study on physical, social and economic factors that may be further impacted by the proposed project. The checklist indicates with a "potentially significant impact, " "potentially significant impact unless mitigated," "less than significant impact, " or "no impact" for each specified environmental topic. A second section, Checklist Responses and Environmental Analysis, will respond and analyze in detain those impacts identified in the checklist. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that aze adequately supported. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact does not apply to the proposed project. An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepazed by the Lead Agency to determine whether an EIR or a Negative Declazation must be prepazed for a specific project and to determine the significant effects to be analyzed in an EIR. The Initial Study for the proposed Costco residential project will serve to focus on effects determined to be potentially significant. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the following checklist has been prepazed that identified any environmental effects. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 5 Costco project March 1999 Environmental Checklist 1. Project title 2. Lead agency: 3. Contact person: 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor: 6. General Plan designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Project Description 9. Surrounding uses: Costco wholesale facility City of South San Francisco Planning Department 400 Grand Ave. South San Francisco CA 94083 Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner (650) 877 8535 East side of West Orange Avenue, between Railroad Avenue and North Canal Street Costco Wholesale Planned Commercial P-C-L (Planned Commercial) Proposed construction of 147,000 wholesale warehouse on approximately 15 acres of land, to also include a, gasoline service station. North: Recreational vehicle storage yard South: vacant/temporary BART concrete batch plant East: Cemetery (City of Colma) El Camino High School (City of South San Francisco) West: Vacant (approved residential project under construction) l0.Other public agency required approvals: Issuance of encroachment, grading, sewer, stormwater and building permits by City of South San Francisco; A Notice of Intent (NOn from the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure that storm water runoff from the site complies with surface water quality standards; City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 6 Costco project March 1999 • Encroachment permit from Caltrans for work within El Camino Real right-of--way; • Encroachment permit from San Mateo County Flood Control District to dischazge additional quantities of stormwater into Colma Creek; • Air quality permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to dispense gasoline from the proposed auto service station; • Review by Congestion Management Agency to ensure consistency with the County-wide Congestion Management Plan (CMP). City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 7 Costco project March 1999 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use/Planning X Transportation/ - Public Services Circulation - Population/Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities/Service S stems X Geotechnical - Energy/Mineral X Aesthetics Resources - Water X Hazards - Cultural Resources X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation X Mandatory Findings of Si nificance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E1R, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Signature: Printed Name: Date: For: City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 8 Costco project March 1999 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site aswell as on-site, cumulative as well asproject-level impacts, indirect as well as direct impacts, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is an appropriate determination if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there aze one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declazation: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 9 Costco project March 1999 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. I. Land Use and Planning. Will the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source: 1) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted with jurisdiction over the project? (Source: 1) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source: 1, 9) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (soils or farmlands or impacts from incompatible uses)? (Source: 9) e) Disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community (including low income or a minority community)? (Source: 9) II. Population and Housing. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source: 2, 10) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source: 1) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source: 9) III. Soils and Geology. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Source: 3 ) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: 3) c) Seismic ground failure? (Source: 3) d) Seiche, tsunami, including liquefaction? (Source: 3) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source: 3) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? (Source: 3) g) Subsidence of land? (Source: 3) h) Expansive soils? (Source: 3) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source: 3, 10) Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Miti ated Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 10 Costco project March 1999 IV. Water. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? (Source: 8) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazazds such as flooding? (Source: 7) c) Dischazge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source: 7, 8) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source: 7, 8) e) Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? (Source: 10) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Source:3) g) Altered direction of rate of flow of groundwater? (Source: 10) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source: 10) i) Substantial reduction on the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source: 8) V. Air Quality. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standazd or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 5) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source:5) c) Alter air movement, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source: 5) d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 9) VI. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal result in? a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source: 4) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source: 4) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source: 4, 7) Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Miti ated Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 11 Costco project March 1999 d) Insufficient pazking capacity onsite or offsite? (Source: 7) e) Hazazds or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source:? ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g .bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 1) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source: 9) VII. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source: 2.9) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source: 2, 9) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat)? (Source: 2) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source: 2) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Source: 2, 9) VII. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source: 1) b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source: 10) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and residents of the State? (Source: 2, 10) IX. Hazards. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazazdous substances including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation? (Source: 10) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 7) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (Source: 10) Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Miti ated ]~ess than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 12 Costco project March 1999 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazazds? (Source: 10) e) Increased fire hazazd in azeas with flammable brush, grass or trees? (Source: 7) X. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source: 6) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source: 6) XI. Public Services. Would the proposal result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas? a) Fire protection? (Source: 7) b) Police protection? (Source:? ) c) Schools? (Source: 8) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source: 8) e) Other governmental services? (Source: 8) XII. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations in the following utilities? a) Power or natural gas? (Source: 2) b) Communication systems? (Source: 2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution systems? (Source: 8) d) Sewer or septic systems? (Source: 7) e) Storm water drainage? (Source: 7) f) Solid waste disposal? (Source: 8) g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source: 8) XIII. Aesthetics. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or view? (Source: 9) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source: 9) c) Create light or glaze? (Source: 9) XIV. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source: 10) b) Disturb archeological resources? (Source: 10) c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Source: 10) Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Miti ated Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 13 Costco project March 1999 d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within potential impact area? (Source: 10) XV. Recreation. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source: 7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Source: 7) XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Miti ated Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. South San Francisco General Plan 2. General Plan Existing Conditions Report 3. Traffic analysis prepared by Rajjapan & Meyers. 4. Air quality analysis prepared by Don Ballanti 5. Site Hazards Analysis prepared by Kleinfelder Associates City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 14 Costco project March 1999 6 Communication with appropriate City of South San Francisco Departments 7. Communication with appropriate service provider or public agency with jurisdiction 8. Site visit 9. Other source City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 15 Costco project March 1999 Attachment to Costco Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Following is a discussion of the preceding checklist items. Each subsection is annotated with a number, name and letter corresponding to the checklist form As stated in the previous section, questions responded to with a "no impact" response, which are adequately supported by appropriate background information, do not require further explanation. Therefore, only those questions marked other than "no impact" are discussed below. Roman numerals correspond to sections within the checklist section. I. Land Use and Planning As part of the proposed project, the applicant has requested a Use Permit and Parcel Map to construct the project as planned. Details regarding these applications are contained in the Project Description of this Initial Study. Impact I-1: Conflict with General Plan designation or zoning? The proposed project would be consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which designates the site as Planned Commercial. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be needed. Impact I-2: Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies? The proposed project would not conflict with environmental plans or polices expressed in the South San Francisco General Plan. No significant impacts are therefore expected in terms of conflicts with environmental plans or policies and no mitigation measures are required. Impact I-3: Incompatibilities with land use in the surrounding area? The proposed project includes constructing approximately 147,000 square feet of wholesale and retail commercial. Such uses are appropriate to be sited along major transportation thoroughfares, such as El Camino, and would be consistent with the surrounding recreational vehicles storage yard to the north, the vacant site to the south and medium density residential development to the west. Less-than-significant impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required. Impact I-4: Would the project affect agricultural operations? There is no recent history of farming or other agricultural operations on the site. The site has been developed for a number of years as a regional department store warehouse and distribution center. No impacts would result if the project were built and no mitigation measures are required Impact I-5: Would the project disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community? The site is considered an infill site with all surrounding properties fully developed No disruption of an existing community would result if the project were built and no mitigation measures are needed. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 16 Costco project March 1999 II. Population and Housing Environmental Impacts Impact II-1. Will the project cumulatively exceed official regional population projections? The proposed project consists of wholesale and retail type uses and would not add new population to the City. There would therefore beno significant environmental impact and no mitigation measures would be required. Impact II-2. Would the project induce substantial growth in this portion of the community, either directly or indirectly? Surrounding properties are substantially developed and designated for commercial uses. No growth inducing impacts would therefore occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impact II-3. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? The project site has been previously developed with a warehouse building with no housing on the site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. III. Soils and Geology Impact III-1: Is the site subject to faull rupture? The site is not within the boundazies of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults aze known to occur within the site boundaries. This is based on community-wide information contained in the General Plan Existing Conditions Report Therefore, the risk of damage due to primary fault rupture is determined to be very low. This is not considered a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. Impact III-2: Is the site subject to ground shaking? Based on historical evidence it is likely that at least one significant earthquake will likeley produce strong ground shaking at the project site during the life of the proposed structures. Ground shaking at the project site is projected to be moderate (VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale) which is associated with the following types of damage: • Slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures; panel walls thrown out of frame structures; chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall. • The expected peak horizontal acceleration (with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in the next 50 yeazs) generated by any of the seismic sources potentially affecting the azea is estimated at 0.6 to 0.7 g (CDMG, 1996). One to two story wood frame residential structures built according to current building codes typically perform well during earthquakes in the absence of ground failure. The City of South San Francisco adminsters the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which contains standazds to ensure buildings will survive major seismic events, including ground shaking. Adherence to all provisions of the Uniform Building Code ensure that potential ground shaking impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and no mitigation measures are required. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 17 Costco project March 1999 Impact III-3: Is the site subject to seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction could result in ground settlement that could damage structures, utilities, and pavement. Based on Figure 10-2 contained in the Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report, the site s subject to "moderate" liquefaction potential. Adherence to design standazds and use of modern construction techniques will reduce the potential effects of liquefaction to a less than significant level and no mitigation measures are needed. Impact III-4. Is the site subject to seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? The site is not located in a low-lying azeas or in proximity to any lazge bodies of water that could produce tsunami, seiches or inundation from dam failure. The project site is not located within an active volcanic region and no volcanic hazazds are present at the site. No impacts are anticipated with regard to seiches or tsunamis and no mitigation measures are required. Impact III-5. Is the site subject to landslides or mudjlows? There aze no major slopes on or adjacent to the project site, therefore landsliding and other slope instabilities are not a hazard at the site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impact III-6. Is the site subject to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? The project site has been previously graded to accommodate the existing warehouse and distribution center. According to the project civil engineer, minor amounts of grading would be needed to construct the proposed project. All grading would be conducted on the project site with no anticipated need to import dirt on the site or export dirt from the site. The precise amount of earthen material to be moved is not known at this time. However, due to the need to demolish existing improvements and construct few facilities could result in erosion of stormwater and other waters off of the site. Although this would be a potentially significant impact, especially since the site is located adjacent to Colma Creek, the applicant will be required to complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to SWPPP Best Management Practices would reduce construction stormwater runoff to a level of less-than-significance and no mitigation measures would be needed. Impact III-7. Is the site subject to subsidence of land? The project would not involve permanent withdrawal of groundwater or removal of oil or natural gas, therefore, the project would not result in regional subsidence. No impacts are anticipated in regard to possible land subsidence and no mitigation measures are required. Impact III-8. Does the site contain expansive soils? Information contained in the Geology section of the General Plan Background Report (page 10-21) indicates that the site is chazacterized primarily by alluvial fill material, which typically is not expansive This is not a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. Impact III-9. Would the project effect unique geologic features? Unique geologic features are considered to be lazge rock outcroppings or other topographic features with historical or cultural significance. No such unique geologic features are located on the site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 18 Costco project March 1999 IV. Water Environmental Setting The project is located in the northerly portion of South San Francisco with the neazest body of surface water, Colma Creek, forming the easterly boundary of the site. Colma Creek is a regionally significant drainage channel with a drainage tributary azea of approximately 16 squaze miles. Near the project site, Colma Creek is confined into a trapezoidal channel. Colma Creek is not subject to tidal influences in this location. Drainage outfalls have previously been constructed into Colma Creek for the wazehouse and distribution center. According to representatives from the San Mateo County Flood Control District, Colma Creek is being upgraded in the vicinity of the project as part of the BART extension program. South of the project site, Colma Creek will be undergrounded. Existing drainage outfalls on the project site are being reconstructed as part of the BART program. Based on information contained on Figure 10-2 of the General Plan Existing Conditions Report, the easterly portion of the site adjacent to Colma Creek are subject to flooding during 100-year or greater flood events. Project Impacts Impact IV-1: Changes to absorption rates? The project site is presently fully developed with buildings and paved parking facilities. The amount of impervious surfaces on the property is neazly 100%, according to the project civil engineer. Construction of the proposed proejct would serve to reduce the amount of impervious by adding additional amounts of landscaped planters which do not presently exist. This would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the site. Therefore, no impacts would result in terms of additional storm water runoff from the site and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV-2: Exposure of people or property to flood hazard? The easterly portion of the project site adjacent to Colma Creek would be inundated with flood water during a 100-year flood event or greater. However, significant site improrements would be constructed along the west side of the site, adjacent to El Camino. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated with respected to potential flood and no mitigation measures would be required. Impact IV-3: Discharge into surface waters or changes to surface water quality? The proposed project would not increase surface water discharge into Colma Creek above historic discharge rates. Since the project site is greater than five acres in size, the project developer must comply with NPDES (National Pollution Dischazge Elimination System), required by the Federal Clean Water Act and enforced by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boazd and the State Water Resources Control Board. As part of NPDES requirements, the project developer must prepare and comply with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which typically incorporates specific methods to control off-site storm water runoff during construction and post-construction phases of the project. The SWPPP must be prepazed and improved prior to City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 19 Costco project March 1999 commencement of project construction. Adherence to requirements of the SWPPP will reduce potential water quality impacts to a level of less than significance and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV-4: Changes in the amount of surface water or water quality? The proposed project would not increase surface water dischazge into Colma Creek, as described above. According to representative of the County Flood Control District, such increases would not be significant, given historical contributions from the site into the Creek and that Creek improvements have been sized to accommodate future development of this site. Storm water runoff from the site could degrade water quality due to mixing of oil and grease, lawn and garden chemicals and other organic and inorganic substances into storm water runoff. Such impacts aze typically more substantial during "first flush" rain storms of the season. The project developer would be obligated to obtain necessazy permits from the State Water Quality Control Boazd (SWQCB), since the site is greater than 5 acres. Both the City of South San Francisco and SWQCB require the preparation and approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, identifying specific Best Management Practice measures to be taken during construction and post construction phases of the project to ensure that water quality is maintained. Through review by SWQCB and City staff and preparation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, no additional mitigation measures are needed. Adherence to these requirements will ensure that potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IV-5: Changes in currents or direction of water flow? No increases in water flow into Colma Creek would occur, based on discussions with the project civil engineer. There would therefore be no impacts to the direction of water flow and no mitigation measures would be required. Impact IV-6: Changes in quantity of groundwater The project would consist of wholesale and retail sales of goods and services. According to representatives from the local water provider, adequate water supplies exist to serve the proposed project without affecting local groundwater supplies. There would therefore be no impacts to quantities of groundwater and no mitigation measures are needed. Impact IV-7: Altered direction of groundwater flow? Since no major subsurface construction is proposed as pazt of the project, existing patterns of groundwater flows aze not expected to be changed This impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV-8: Impacts to groundwater quality? Major subsurface construction is not anticipated as part of the project nor is the type of use proposed for the site anticipated to result in impacts to groundwater resources This impact is considered not significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IV-9: Substantial reduction in groundwater resources ? The proposed project would require water for domestic and firefighting purposes. Based upon discussions with California Water Service representatives, this amount of water is not anticipated to be significant and no mitigation measures are required. See Impact XIII-3 for additional discussion of potential water impacts. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 20 Costco project March 1999 V. Air Quality Project Impacts Impact V-1. Would the project violate air quality standards or contribute to a projected air quality violation ?Three potential air quality impacts are identified in this Initial Study: short term construction impacts, long term operational impacts and regional impacts. Short Term Construction Impacts Construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-waterbase paints, thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. Construction dust could affect local air quality at vazious times during construction of the project. The dry, windy climate of the azea during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils aze exposed to the atmosphere. The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM 10 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially significant and the following mitigation measure is recommended. Long Term Operational Impacts On the local scale, the project would change traffic on the local street network, changing carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest neaz intersections of major roads. Air quality impacts should be addresses in an EIR. Impact V-2. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Potential impacts to sensitive receptors and mitigation measures have been addressed in Impact V-1. Impact V -3. Alter air movement, moisture or other climactic condition? The proposed project does not contain any features that would block existing air currents or wind movement nor result in any other potentially significant climactic changes. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impact V-4. Create objectionable odors? The project is proposed to consist of commercial development, although a portion of the project would include construction of a gasoline service station. Gasoline dispensing is regulated through permitting processes City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 21 Costco project March 1999 by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for release of potentially hazazdous and odor-causing substances into the ambient air. The applicants will be required to obtain such permits from the BAAQMD and permits required. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. VI. Transportation/Circulation Project Impacts Impact VI-1 Would the project result in increased traffic congestion ?Traffic impacts need to be addresed in an E1R. Impact VI-2: Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features ? The traffic analysis indicates that no unsafe traffic conditions would be created if the improvements outlines in Mitigation Measure 10 are implemented. No impacts would therefore occur regazding traffic safety and no additional mitigation measures aze required. Impact VI-3: Is adequate emergency access provided? Based upon discussions with the South San Francisco Fire Department, two vehicular access points are required to allow for adequate emergency vehicle access. The proposed project includes two access points to El Camino Real. No impacts would therefore occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VI-4: Is sufficient parking provided? .The applicant proposes to provide 736 parking stalls, which includes handicapped spaces. This represents a ratio of one parking space per 200 gross squaze feet of building azea, whihc is consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning OrdinanceThere would be no impacts related to parking and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VI-5 Would the project result in hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists? A sidewalks currently exist along the west side of site along El Camino No hazards to pedestrians would be created and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VI-6: Would the project conflict with alternative transportation policies? Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any existing City policy regarding promoting alternative modes of transit. No impacts to alternative transit is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VI-7: Would the project create rail, waterborne to air traffic impacts ?The proposed project would have no impact on these modes to transit. Therefore, there would be no impact to rail, water or rail transit and no mitigation measures are needed. VII. Biological Resources Project Impacts City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 22 Costco project March 1999 Impact VII-1 Does the site contain endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds) Based on a field investigation and material included within the General Plan Existing Conditions Report,. the site does not contain rare, threatened or endangered species or their habitat. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VII-2 Does the site contain locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees). No locally designated endangered species, including heritage trees, have been observed on the site. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VII-3 Does the site contain locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat) ? No locally designated natural communities, including oak forests or coastal habitat, have been observed on the site. No impacts are foreseen and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VII-4 Does the site contain wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?Colma Creek, a regionally significant drainage channel, forms the southerly boundary of the site. The channel is periodically cleared by the County Flood Control District so that no wetland vegetation exists within or along the channel bottom Access to Colma Creek is presently fenced to preclude human activity except for normal maintenance functions undertaken by the County Flood Control District. No changes in the amount of stormwater runoff into Colma Creek over existing and historic volumes. No impacts to wetland habitats are this anticipated and no mitigations are required. Impact VII-5 Does the site contain wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Although wildlife corridors have been observed on the project site, Colma Creek, adjacent to the site, likely provides such a corridor. Since Colma Creek is fenced off from the proposed project and no obstructions or blockages to the Creek would be constructed as part of this project, there would be no significant impacts to existing wildlife corridors and no mitigation measures are required. VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The soils underlying much of the site is composed of alluvial fill and is not considered to be a significant mineral resource. The proposed project is not anticipated to use any unusual qualities of energy, either for construction or on an operational basis. Project Impacts Impact VIII-1 Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans ?The proposed project would be required to comply with Title 24 energy standards as part of new construction. Landscaping plans would need to be in compliance with AB City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 23 Costco project March 1999 325 which requires water budgets for new plantings and methods of irrigation. No impacts are foreseen and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VIII-2 Would the project use non renewable resources in a wasteful manner? The proposed project would use normal and customary building materials typical of a modern commercial project, including aggregate, sand, concrete, wood products, petroleum-based shingles, plastics, metals and similaz products. No impacts are foreseen regarding wasteful use of non-renewable resources and no mitigation measures are required. Impact VIII-3 Would the project resull in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and residents of the State? There aze no known mineral resources on the site that would be lost if the project were built as proposed. Therefore, no impacts would occur with regard to mineral resources, and no mitigation measures are required. IX. Hazards Impact IX-1 Would the project result in a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation? The proposed project would include dispensing of gasoline and other auto- related chemicals as part of the Costco service station. If handled improperly, gasoline spills could result. The project developer will be required to comply with local, county, state and federal standazds for the sale, handling and storage of gasoline and similaz materials. Adherence to all applicable standards relating to gasoline sale, handling and storage will reduce the risk of accidential explosion or release of hazardous material to a less than significant level and no mitigation measures are required.. Impact IX-2 Possible interference with emergency evacuation plans? The proposed project would include a minimum of two vehiculaz access points on El Camino. This satisfies City requirements for access points for commercial projects of this size. Therefore, no impacts would result related to emergency evacuation plans and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IX-3 Would the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No known health hazazds would result if the proposed project were to be constructed. Although sources of contamination have been identified on the site based on a previous site use, proposed uses would not involve manufacture or storage of hazazdous materials. Therefore, no health hazards would be created and no mitigation measures are required. Impact IX-4 Would the project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards? The project site has been determined to be contaminated and this issue should be addresses in an EIR. Impact IX-5 Would the project increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? The project site would be improved with paved pazking azeas, permanent City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 24 Costco project March 1999 buildings and irrigated landscaping. Therefore, the potential for wildfires on the site would be minimal. The storage and dispensing of gasoline motor fuel will be regulated by local, county and state requirements. Less than significant impacts would result related to fire hazards and no mitigation measures are required. X. Noise Project Impacts Impact X-1 Would the project increase noise levels Construction of the proposed project would increase local noise, both during the demolition and construction phase as well as during the long-term operational phase of the project. Long-term sources of noise would include mechanical noises, associated with heating, cooling and ventilating equipment and vehicle noise, such as associated with delivery trucks and vehicles used by patrons and employees of the facility. The amount of noise is anticipated to be less than significant due to the lack of permanent, on-site residents and the distance of residences away from the site. No mitigation measures are required. Impact X-2 Would the project expose people to severe noise levels ? .Although increases in the amount of local noise could be expected with construction of the proposed project, noise exposure to local residents on the west side of El Camino is not anticipated to be significant or severe due to the higher elevation of residences on the west side of the site and the distance separating residential development on the west side of the road from the Costco site. A less than significant impact is therefore anticipated with regard to exposure of local residents to severe noise levels and no mitigation measures are needed. XI. Public Services. Environmental Setting Public services are provided by the following agencies: • Fire Protection and Emergency Services. Fire protection and emergency services aze provided by the City of South San Francisco Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the City of South San Francisco Police Department, which maintains a 24-hour security patrol throughout the community. • Schools. The South San Francisco Unified School District provides educational services to the community. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of South San Francisco. The City shares costs for maintaining El Camino Real with the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 25 Costco project March 1999 Environmental Impacts Impact XI-1: Would the project result in potential fire protection impacts? According to representatives from the South San Francisco Fire Department, construction of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to fire and rescue service. The nearest fire station is located at 3300 Arroyo Way (Station No. 3) with an estimated response time of 3 to 5 minutes. Equipment and personnel at this facility include an engine company and a rescue truck ,manned by five personnel. As part of project review, the Fire Department will attach conditions to ensure that provisions of the Uniform Fire Code are met, including provision of adequate water quantity and pressure, construction of fire hydrants within the project, ensuring adequate access to all structures in the project, street addressing signs and adherence to minimum construction standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur with respect to fire protection impacts and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XI-2: Would the project result in potential police impacts? According to representatives from the South San Francisco Police Department, construction of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to the South San Francisco Police Department. The primary use on the site, the Costco warehouse facility, would develop and implement an on-site security program, including use of in-store plainclothes security officers and spot checking customers leaving the building. As part of the final buildings, all buildings on the site must comply with standard South San Francisco Police Department security requirements, including but not limited to minimum levels of site lighting, installation of locking devices for buildings and maintenance of surveillance areas. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur related to police services and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XI-3: Would the project result in potential school impacts? The project would not include new residential dwellings so that no impacts would occur to local schools and no mitigation measures are required Impact XI-4: Would the project result in potential maintenance impacts? Less than significant impacts are anticipated regarding the need for City maintenance services. Since all public improvements adjacent to the project would be newly constructed by the project developer, no maintenance would be anticipated for several years following completion of improvements. The project would contribute to increased maintenance costs for El Camino Real, however, the amount of increased maintenance would be incremental and is not quantifiable. Any future maintenance costs would also be fully or partially off-set be taxes and fees paid by the site occupant(s). No mitigation measures that therefore required. Impact XI-5: Would there be potential impacts to other governmental services? No significant impacts are anticipated to other governmental services. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. XII. Utilities and Service Systems. Environmental Setting City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 26 Costco project March 1999 The project site is served by the following service providers: • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: Pacific Bell • Water supply: California Water Service • Sewage treatment: City of South San Francisco • Storm drainage: City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Flood Control District • Solid waste disposal: South City Scavengers Environmental Impacts Impact XII-1 Would the project result in power or natural gas impacts? The proposed project would be served electrical power and natural gas by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) transmission facilities. PG&E presently has facilities El Camino to be able to provide full service to the project site. The City will require that services to new dwellings be undergrounded. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XII-2 Would the project result in communication impacts ?The proposed project would be provided telephone and telecommunication service by Pacific Bell. Pacific Bell presently has facilities within El Camino to be able to provide full service to the proposed subdivision. The City will require that services to new dwellings be undergrounded. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XII-3 Would the project result in impacts to local or regional water treatment or distribution systems? According to representatives from California Water Service, adequate water quantity and pressure can be supplied to the site via an existing 12-inch main in El Camino to accommodate the type and intensity of development proposed. This would include water for both domestic and firefighting use. Future uses on the project site will be required to comply with water conservation measures, including but not limited to low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscape plantings. Thus, less than significant impacts to the local water system is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XII-4 Would the project result in impacts to local or regional wastewater treatment or distribution systems? According to representatives from the City's Engineering Department, adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed development. The project developer will be required to relocate an existing sewer line that currently traverses the site. The City of South San Francisco is presently upgrading the water quality control plant, which will ensure more than adequate sewer treatment capacity. Thus, less than significant impacts to the local and regional sewer system is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 27 Costco project March 1999 Impact XII-5 Would the project result in storm drainage impacts? This topic is addressed in Section III, Water. Impact XII-6 Would the project impact local or regional water supplies? According to representatives from California Water Service, adequate long term water supplies exist to provide water to the proposed facility. Less than significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XII-7 Would the project generate signjicantly increased amounts of solid waste? Although the proposed Costco facility would increase the amount of solid waste generated, representatives of the local solid waste company indicate that the amount will not be significant and can be accommodated with existing resources. Preliminarily, the Costco wazehouse would be equipped with trash compactors or bailers to reduce the volume of solid waste. The solid waste company is also mandated to reduce the amount of solid waste through imposition of AB 939. Thus, there would be a less than significant impact related to slid waste and no mitigation measures aze needed. XIII. Aesthetics. Environmental Setting The project site has been previously developed with a similar type building and land use. The main building has been built adjacent to El Camino with minimal landscaping provided. Major views within this portion of the community are towards San Bruno Mountain to the north. Environmental Impacts Impact XIII-1 Would the project affect a scenic vista or view. Since the proposed Costco building would replace a similar size and scale building, there would be no major change affecting existing views and vistas. This impact is not considered significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XIII-2 Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ? Construction of the proposed project would include demolishing the existing Macy's warehouse building and constructing a large wholesale warehouse on the site. The project frontage along El Camino would be improved with street trees with additional trees planted within the parking lot of the proposed facility. This impact is not considered significant and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XIII-3 Would the project create light or glare? There are presently no sources of light on the site, since the existing building is vacant. Construction of the proposed project would increase light sources due to the installation of security lighting, parking lot lighting and related building lighting. Minimum levels of light are required for security purposes. New light sources could "spill over" into Colma Creek and El Camino Real. and this topic should be addressed in an EIR. XIV. Cultural Resources City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 28 Costco project March 1999 Project Impacts Impact XIV-1 Would the project disturb paleontological resources? The possibility is low that paleontological or archeological artifacts would be found on the site, based on previous site grading and construction. Impact XIV-2 Would the project have the potential to disturb archeological resources? The possibility is low that paleontological or archeological artifacts would be found on the site, based on previous site construction. Mitigation XX would also apply to archeological artifacts as well. Impact XIV-3 Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ?The project site is presently developed and contains no unique cultural or ethnic features. No impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XIV-4 Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within potential impact area ?The project site is presently developed for commercial uses and contains no religious or sacred uses or features. No impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required. XV. Recreation. Project Impacts Impact XV-1 Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Construction of the proposed Costco project would not increase the demand for local park or recreation facilities since no new residents would be located on the site. No impacts would therefore result and no mitigation measures are required. Impact XV-2 Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? Since no recreational facilities exist on the project site, no impacts would result to existing recreational facilities or opportunities. No mitigation measures would be required. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources. t;ity of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 29 Costco project March 1999 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? No. The project represents an example of infill commercial development occurring adjacent to a major regional transportation corridor. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project aze considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, air emissions, light and glaze and the need for public services and utilities, the project site lies within an already urbanized area. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of prepazing this Initial Study. City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 30 Costco project March 1999 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager) Don Ballanti (air quality analysis) ???, Rajappan & Meyer (traffic analysis) Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of South San Francisco Jim Harnish, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner Richard Harmon, Senior Engineering Technician Ron Petrocchi, Police Department California Water Service Chris Volonte, Superintendent San Mateo County Flood Control District Bob Frame, Senior Engineer City of South San Francisco Initial Study Page 31 Costco project March 1999 Appendix 8.2 Notice of Preparation Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 64 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Notice of Preparation To: Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of South San FRancisco Planning Department 31 S Maple Avenue South San Francisco CA 94083 Contact: Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner, Planning Department, (650) 877 8535 The City of South San Francisco will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or other approvals for this project. Project Title: Costco wholesale warehouse development. Project Location: East side of El Camino Real (State Route 82), approximately 1200 feet south of the intersection of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. The street address is 1600 El Camino Real (APN 010-212-070). Project Description: Construction of a Costco wholesale warehouse, associated 16-pump automobile service station and up to 73,000 square feet of other retail commercial uses on the 26.7 acre site. The attached supplement identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be returned at the earliest possible time but not later than 30 days following receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the contact person identified above. Date: Signature: Title: Telephone: Appendix 8.3 Response to Notice of Preparation Proposed Costco Project Draft EIR. Page 65 City of South San Francisco April 1999 Apr-06-99 16:26 Pacific Gas anti Electt'i~ Company March 30, 1999 t t t Almaden Bnulpvard P 0.9ox 15Q05 San Jose. CA 95115-0005 City of South San F~ rancisco Pl~uininu Division 3 l ~ Maple Avo.JY,O. l3ox 71 1 South San Francisco, Ct~ 94083 Attention: 5usy Karin, Senior Planner fee: ~utice of Preparation 17rati Environmental impact Itepurt (:'ostco Warehouse development A~~~ ~- . ~ :_ .. FL.~' : " ,•.~ P.02 Ucar Ms. Kalkin: ~l~h~tnk you for the uppc~rtunity to review- the. Notice of Preparation (NUP) for the prolx~,ed C'ostco Wholesale Warehouse Ucv~l~rpmcrtt Pre~jcct. l'C;BtI:; has the following conut:cnts to offer. 1'Cj&:L; owns and operates gas and elec;lric facilitiati ~chicat stn located within and adjacent tc- the proposed project. 'fo promote the :,ale and rcliuhie rn.rintenance and operation of utility facilities, the California Public l.~tititits C'ammission (CPI'C) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility tacilities and surrounding objects ar urnstruction ~~etivities. To ensure compliance with these suand~rds, project proponents Should euurdinate with PG&L early in the deveioptncnt of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrrstcictccl utility access and preti~cnt easeincnt encroachments that might impair the sate and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&F,'s facilities_ f)tvelopen will be responsible tI>r the costs associated with the relocation of existino PG&F. facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities r~locatiun's require long lead times and tyre not always feasible, developers should be c~zcouraged to consult with PGBcG as early in their plannin t stages as possible. Ftelocatian of l'G&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and ahuve) could require formal approvtsi from the California Public iJlilities Commissian_ If rcyuired, this approval procex~r could take up to two years to complete. Proponent.~r with development plans which could affect such electric transmission facilities should be referred to FGcYtE for additional information and assistance. in the development of their project schedules. Apr-06-99 16:27 P.03 We would also like to note that continued devcl(Ipment consistent with your C,cneral flans will have a cumulative impact on YG&F.'s was and cloctnc systems toil msy require on-site and oft'-site additions and impr«vemcnts to tiro facilities which supply these services. Herause utility facilities art operated as an itttt:urated system, th~* presence of an existing ~1us ar clcetric transmission or (listributi(~n facility (tests t(ot nCCCSSUri1~• mean the facility ttls capacity to connect new loads. Expainsion ol~ (lititribution and transmission lints anti rrlalod facilities is a necessary cottseyuencc of growth and development. Tn adclitiolt to adding new distrihution feeders, the rattgc ot• electric system improvements nredesl to accotnmodatc growth may include upgrading existing sukrstation and transmission line eyuipment, expanding existing 5ubsitttiom to their ultimate buildout capacity, and huilding now substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or sciditions needed to accornm<xiate additional load on the gas system could incaude !'aciiities such as regula-nr stations, uduri•rer Stations, valve lots, distribution ctnd transmission lines_ We wOlllCl lift; t« recommend that environrrtental dncuttientS for proposes! development pr~jtets include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility ~yscctns, the utility facilities steeled to serve those developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. "!'his wiE1 assort the project's cumpliancc with C;EQA a.nd reduce potential delays to the project schedule. We also encourage the City of South San t'raneisco to include infortnatinn about the issue of elrrtric and magnetic fields {EMF} in the llreft lrnvironmcntal lmpa(a ltcport. It is PC~cL's pcflicy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMI'. '`L•'iectric and Magnetic Ficids (1'?MF) exitit wherever there is electricity--in appliances, homey, schools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the actual health effect. of >rMF exlx>surc. but it iy an issue of public concern. If you have questions about EMI', please call your local PC~~E office. A puckal;e of information which includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other groups will be 4ent to you upon your request". 1'GBtL' rcm~lins committed to working with City of South San l'ranc.isco to pmvide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electt-ic ser~•ice to project 3tea. Please contact Alex F3autisttt at (640) 985-7338 if you have any questions retarding our comments. We would dl5o appreciate being copied on Future corretipondt~rice regarding this subject as this project develops. Apr-06-99 16x29 P.O1 -hhc California C'omtitutii-n vests in the California Yub[ic Utilities Cammissian (i'Pl_I(=) C!CCII[Sive power 1[ld sole ctuthprity with respCCt to the rcgulatiort of privately ~7~ined or investor owned pub[ie utilities such s.K F'G&F.. This excltt5ive Power zxtcn~is to all aspects of the iue~uion, dcsiLn. conswctiun, tnaintznance and operation of• Pubiic utility taClht[CS. NCYCRh~llss, the ('Pt;t:' huff provisions fi.-r rcSutated utilities to +~•cx•l: clus~av with local 6uverntnents Ina give glue Considere-tiun io their coneCms. PCi~~ mUSt balance our Commitment to provide due considcrution to lur.al concerns with nor obligation to pm~.'idc the puhlic with a safe. rcliahle, cost-effective eucrky supply in comPliarx:~ with the rules a,tc! t~uifl's of the CPiJC'. Should you rcquiro any ~dditio[ia! inli~rmation or have [any questions please calf me at (40t;) 282-71 i)6. Sincerely, Thomas J. Llatunich Land Agent cc: A.nautista 04/09/1999 16:45 `y~ [",. ~' ~~ ~~ ;. ~ 6508296639 SSF PLANNING PAGE 02 TOWN OF COLMA 1190 EI Camino Real • Colma, California 94014 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: (650) 985-2590 • FAX: (650) 985-578 • ~ ,.- r ~. .. .. ... . J April 6, 1999 Susan KaHtin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Div. P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Notice of Proparation -Draft Environmental Impact Report - Costco Wholesale Warehouse Dear Ms. Kalkin: Thank you for inviting us to comment on the Nodcs of Preparation for the Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development. We concur with the list of topics you have identified for analysis in the EIR document. We request that the fdlowing areas of analysis be inducted within V-e topics listed: Transportation and Ciroulation: The analysis of cumulative traffic impacts related to construction of the Costco building and gas station, the retail development and the projected traffic impacts associated with the BART station should indude projected traffic onto Hickey Boulevard after the extension, and include recommended intersection design and level of service infom~ation at both EI Camino Real and at Mission Road. The analysis should include impacts to roadways in the Town of Colma especially where Mission Road intersects EI Camino Real. We request traffic counts at this intersection. We understand that BART wHl be oonstructing an extension of Hickey Boubvard-from EI Camino Real to Mission Road as part of the BART to SFO extension project. We request that the Draft EIR estimate the traffic that will be attracted to the Costco fauGty from Hillside t3outevard and evaluate the need for the eastward extension of Hickey Boulevard from Mission Road b Higside Boulevard. The report should discuss use of the BART right of way east of the Costco sits. The Town of Colma would like to see a strong landscape buffer between the Costco project site and the vacant propeAy M the Town of Colma across the BART right of way to the east The Colma General Plan anticipates the property behind the Costco site to the east will be devebped for mixed use, with housing over retail or oMce. As you can appreciate, the Town of Colma would like to assuro that housing at this site remains a viable option, and that proper mitigatlon measures for traffic and noise are inducted within the Costco Development EIR. 04/09/1999 16:45 6508296639 SSF PLANNING PAGE 03 Notice of Preparation, Costoo Development, April Q, 19>i9 Pape 2 Noise: The analysis of noise should address both ambient and project related noise, including all noise from additional traffic generation, and commercial activities on the Costco site. Noise impacts should be projected from the project boundaries with appropriate mitigation for future noise levels exceeding 80 dBA. Aesthetks, t~g~tt and Glare: We recommend that the analysis include cross sections through the site and adjacent streets with a discussion of any affeda on sonic views. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to receiving the draft EIR when it is ready. Please call me or Michael Laughlin of our staff if you have any questions about the comments in this letter. Sin rely, ~k)~t. Malcolm C. Ca ntQr, AICP City Planner Cc: City Manager City Attorney City Engineer ~. ~ ,„ Apr-21-99 13:36 State of Calltomia Memorandum Date Apc11 14, 1999 To V10S1C F3oyd F~ro)c;c;t Analyst State Cleatringhouse C)ftice of Planning anti Research 14~~ Tenth street Sacramento, C'A 95812-30)44 From C:liffartl L. Bowen, !'.). ~~/~F~------ District Engineer Sou, Francisco District [)rinkin~; Water Field Qperatiuns Branch sua~.~t Notice oi'Prcparation of a Draft Environmental Tmpact Report CC15l~c) W}lOlcsaie Warehc~utie DCVCiopnlent SC.IT/f 99Q32C147 P.02 Department of Health $orvlces "1•he T)t;partmcnt has received a letter from the City of South Saud l~ranciscri re~;ardirt[; the prei-aration of a draft F.nvironmcntal Impact Itc~art for the Costa, Whctlcsalt~ Dc;vclopment Prgjcct. Tl~-c project description includes the construction oi~a 16-pump at~tomohile scrviec station. The Department is concerned about the potential lur groundwater ayui [t:r5 to bc: contaminated by underground storage tanks. The South S:ui I~rancisc:o District of C3lifnrnia Water scrviec Company, the t'ity of Daly City, and the City ot'San Bruno etch have rr~ultiplc drinking water we11s that may bc: impacted by this project. We recommend that the City of South San Francisco evaluate tttc potential impact to acarby existing drinking ~~~atcr wt115 and rtolity the t'esl~ective water SystetllS of the project. li'yotr have any c{uesiions regarding this maucr, please contact Ms. Mona Lee ;tt. (5lf)) 54p-21 i3, cc: sic ricxt page Apr-21-99 13:36 ce. lliv~isiim of 1)rinkinb W,tler and Lnvirunntental Marta~cment. S1)WS1tP'-Hnvir. C'oorclin:~tvr San Mateo Cuunty 1=.»virvnmcntal Health i)epartrrlcnt Mr. C'rai~ tiilnlour 1)iru:tor of Water Quality and )/nvironntcntal Affairs ~:alifornia Water Service C'omP~uty 1720 Nvrth First Street San .1osc, CA 95112.45~R Mr. Patrick Swcc:tl:uld Dir~ct~r Department of Water and Wustc~vater Rrsuure;cs City <}f Daly City 153 Lakc Merceel Blvd. Daly C.`ity, CA ~)4i)1 5 Mr. Scutt Chadd Director cif Public Works City ctf San Bnmo 56? Ll C'~minn Ttcal Sai113runo, CA ~14gGG P.03 Apr-16-99 15:12 0 4 J 15 / 99 '['HU 16 : S f E:,~7C Ba0 991 $0? 0 ECON d- CO1i DEYrpt,~ ~/ES '~-~, ~~ CITY QF DAI.Y CITY 333-90TH ~TR![T OA~Y CITY. CA ~1p1S1e~~3 rMp+[~ ibi01 p01 -!•000 April 14, 1999 Busy Kalkicy Senior Planner City of South San Francisco 31 S Mspte Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Comments on Notice of Prepatation - prag Environmental Impact Report Proposed Costeo Wholesale Wazehouse Development Dear Ms. Kalkin: Thank you for giving the City of Daly City the opportunity to canunent on the notice of preparation for the DEIR and the proposed Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development project at 1t500 El Camino Real in Souhl- Sett Frmcisco. The comments oo the DEIR NOP and the project are as follows: Traffic end C.i_r >t~r~on 1. TraPffe on Hickey Boulevard would significantly increase as a result of the project, resulting in added congestion at the Northbound ~ Southbaufd Hickey 81vd & I-280 interchange, sad the Hickey and Junipero Serra Boulevard signalized intersection. As the Hickey Boulevard exit fiom i-280 is the most ditbet route Goan the west to ucess the Costco project, the bulk of the additional congestion would be felt by bath Daly City and South San Francisco residents who live directly adjacent to this interchange. The Costco use will generate heavy weekend trips ate therefore the DEIR's traffic study should also include weekend peak analysis at the aforetnc~tianed intersections. 2. Coltrane maintAias the Hickey Bottleva>;d I-280 intersection, wtric6 will be heavily impacted by the project. Daly City raluesta a written response from South San Francisco that Caltrans accepts the tra~i'ic study for tlfe DE,Q2. specifically in relation to the Hickey I-280 Interchange. 3. The Ctity believes that some westbound Hickey Boulevard traffic 1~vta the project will bypass the Hickey I-280 i~erchange. 'This traffic will utilize northbound Junipar+o Serra Boulevard to access the northbound 1-280 interchange at the intersection of Secrarnonte Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard. TraA~te within this inter>rl~artge is congested and the addition of Costca project traffic would fwther negatively izztpact this intersection. This intersection P.02 ~ 002 Apr-16-99 15x13 P.03 04!13ii19 Till' 18:32 F.4a 830 Y91 AQ7o fCOh ~ COY DE~'!Pt~ NKS 0003 Comb o4 D!.IR NOP Pate 2 Praporea Catno Wt+pksw~ Waret+aMM Dweiapsent Apr$14,1949 should be pact of the traIISe study for the DEiR. Furtcxsmor~e, as portiouA of this intersection lies within the City of Colma, Daly City requests a written response from South San Fras~isco ttaat both Cobra and Coltrane accept the tragic study section of tlu EIR, specifically in relation to the Serramonte/luadpesn Soma Boulevard 1-280 interchaagc. 4. The City ha: a serious concern about the offoct the Costco devebpment project traffic will have oa the Storage capacity of tba westbound left-turn lase at the Hickey i3oulevard/1-280 Lnterchange. This condition should be evacuated in the DEIR. overall, the construction of the Coateo project will hacve negative traffic impact the reach beyond ~e bovadaries~ of South San Ft~cisco. Intersections within the Cities of Daly City and Colma, in addition to the I-Z80 inter+clun$oa at Hickey Boulevard & Serrarnonio Boulevard which are maintained by Caltrans, wilt be adversely itrlpaeted by the inc,7ease in traffic congestion fivm the Costco projoct. In Daly City, trstTic along Hickey Boulevard in the vicinity of the I-280 interehaage is heavy and the addition of traBlc from the Costco facility, which is a regional deatinatirni commercial use, would further woisett the already overcrowded tretlic ca~nditians along Hickey 8outavArd. The City of Daly City believq the tralHc study section of the Dt?IR should address the aforementioned cammenta. Iu addition, Daly City requests a written response from South San Francisoa that both Colma send Caltrans has roviewed and accepted Ehe tr~aftcc study for the EIR. Fwtherenace, Daly City will require: mitigation of any siegative impact at City intersections as a result of the project traffic genarate~ from the Costco development. Rc¢ional Land Use Co tih:t;ty Th~c City of Daly City believes the proposed Costco development is iacompati>1ce with the regional transportation opportunities located scar the devebpment site. Witt the come;truction of the BART Airpott extension and the prevalence of local bus service within close proximity of the Costco project area, rosidential land uses would be better ae3rved for the project site than a wholesale/bulk goods warehouse, Goatee is a wholesale goods regional destination, in which bulk item curlsutnet purchases del sot lend themselves to utilization of public transportation facilities. Thus, patron of the Goatee will roly trtoro oil private transportation rather than t+eadily available public transit opportunities within the project site to transport bulY item goods pu~,chaaes. The proposed Goatee developrnest door sot support local or regional transit eflicieocies for location of both affordable sad mixed-use horsing within close proximity of these public transportation facilities. 't'he Dt:IR must address the ]and use compatibility of the ptoposod Goatee development gives the public transit efficiency within the aces, 4-16-1999 3=32Pti1 FROM BLDG ENGR 650 829 6689 y P.2 .. .. .. aaa~• a,u • vi aMw, YJV o01 OUI Y ~.~UN ~ t;~~ D `~~]~$ ~$ ~OOI . Ceee~ w D61~R NO! Propo~~d Castro W~~ Wae+a~o~ t 3 ~ Aprfi 14, X~99q ZI4180 T~ P'mposed Coatoo dcv~etoprnGat will resetlt is poteQtiaiiy sigctificant noise ' conatruetioa phase sad operation p~ ~~ . impacts. Both the the DEIR. If the conodlection ~~„~~ empacts of the devetopnteat moat be evaluated in for the pr+nject, negative »oise ' P~ ~~ and blasting ss pact of tha Foundation work Miti lmpacta will be prevalent aw adjacent r+e~dential aei Sa~oa measures for both the abort-terra co O°~• must be included as part of the DEIR. ~ and ~ t~ operation of tkee projsct 'The DBIIt far the Costoo prof eci should evaluate flee project's impacts on the Colma Crealt- Ciuadalupe Capyoa Stann Drainage Basin. A large area of Daly City sad Colms currently drains into the ~ ! aQjactnt ~ El Camino ltzal into Colma through South San Fr'aacisco to the San Frareciaco Bay. C~ea1c and ultimately We would Iiloe to receive fow (4~ caopiea of flee Draft >rIR. Please atteatiotl of Carlos do Mela, Associate P ~~ the copse: to the larm-er, b~aiy City Plaoaing Division, If you have sny questions or require say additions! iafioumation, pkasc contact me at y91.8033. Sincerely, ~~~ Carlos de Melo Associate Planiaer cc: Jahn C. Martin, City ~ Mss T~'Y Sodik, Dir+octor, Econasr~ie & Cortimuairy Development Deparmneat Richard BmEer, Assistant Director, BcoAOnauc dot Commwnity Dewelo~pmeOt Depanmeat Al Ssvay, Senior Plaruur