Initial Study

Transcription

Initial Study

APPENDIX B
Initial Study
INITIAL STUDY
San Carlos Retail Center Project
1133 Industrial Road, San Carlos
City of San Carlos
November 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE..................................................................... 1
II.
PROJECT INFORMATION.............................................................................. 1
A.
Project Title .......................................................................................... 1
B.
Lead Agency Name and Address................................................................. 1
C.
Contact Person and Telephone Number......................................................... 1
D.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ........................................................... 1
E.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required ......................................... 1
F.
Project Location ..................................................................................... 2
G.
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers........................................................................ 2
H.
Applicable Zoning Districts and General Plan Designations ................................ 2
I.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ............................................................. 2
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 4
IV.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED................................. 8
Determination ................................................................................................. 8
A.
Land Use ............................................................................................. 9
B.
Population and Housing........................................................................... 12
C.
Geology and Soils.................................................................................. 13
D.
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................... 18
E.
Air Quality .......................................................................................... 22
F.
Traffic................................................................................................ 27
G.
Biological Resources .............................................................................. 37
H.
Mineral Resources ................................................................................. 40
I.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................... 41
J.
Noise ................................................................................................. 47
K.
Public Services/Recreation ....................................................................... 54
L.
Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................... 58
M.
Aesthetics............................................................................................ 62
N.
Cultural Resources................................................................................. 73
O.
Agricultural Resources ............................................................................ 77
FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure M-1:
Figure M-2:
Figure M-3:
Figure M-4:
Figure M-5:
Figure M-6:
Figure M-7:
Figure M-8:
San Carlos Retail Center Project Site Location ................................................ 3
Project Site Plan..................................................................................... 5
Existing Northern Façade of Vacant Breuners Building..................................... 63
West End of Existing Breuners Building and Parking Lot .................................. 64
Existing Landscaping around Breuners Buildings ............................................ 65
Business Park North of Project Site ............................................................ 66
Existing US 101 Signage for Project Site ...................................................... 67
Existing Industrial Road Signage for Project Site ............................................ 68
Existing Eastern Façade of Vacant Breuners Building....................................... 71
Varied Setback between Best Buy and Breuners.............................................. 72
San Carlos Retail Center Project—Initial Study
P:\Projects - WP Only\D40000.00+\D41225.00 San Carlos Retail Center\Initial Study\Final IS 11.15.06.doc
Page i
TABLES
Table F-1:
Table F-2:
Table F-3:
Table F-4:
Table F-5:
Table F-6:
Table F-7:
Table F-8:
Table J-1:
Table J-2:
Table J-3:
Table J-4:
Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ........................................................... 28
Stop Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria..................................................... 28
San Carlos Retail Center Existing Intersection Levels of Service ......................... 29
San Carlos Retail Center Existing Freeway Levels of Service ............................. 30
Future Intersection Levels of Service........................................................... 31
Project Trip Generation Estimates .............................................................. 33
Project Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................... 34
Project Freeway Levels of Service.............................................................. 35
Federal Transit Administration Incremental Noise Impact Criteria ....................... 48
Average Noise Levels of Construction Equipment with and
without Controls (dBA) ........................................................................... 50
Average Noise Levels Without and With the Proposed Project (dBA) ................... 51
Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................ 53
San Carlos Retail Center Project—Initial Study
Page ii
I.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Initial Study was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.)
and in accordance with the regulations and policies of the City of San Carlos (City). This Initial Study
addresses the potential environmental impacts of the San Carlos Retail Center Project (the “proposed
project”) at 1133 Industrial Road, in order to determine if either a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report is warranted to satisfy CEQA requirements for environmental review of
the proposed project.
II.
PROJECT INFORMATION
A. PROJECT TITLE
B. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of San Carlos
Planning Department
600 Elm Street
Burlingame, CA 94010
C. CONTACT PERSON AND TELEPHONE NUMBER
Elizabeth Cullinan
Director of Planning
City of San Carlos
(650) 802-4263
D. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
SPI Holdings, LLC
650 California Street, Suite 1288
San Francisco, CA 94104
E. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED
x
San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, for a determination of proposed project
consistency with the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP);
x
Federal Aviation Administration, for issuance of a Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation; and
x
County of San Mateo, for a Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit and compliance with
performance standards in the San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
(STOPPP) Stormwater Management Plan and Provision C.3 New Development and
Redevelopment Performance Standards.
San Carlos Retail Center Project — Initial Study
Page 1
F. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is within an approximately 10-acre parcel at 1133 Industrial Road in the City of
San Carlos, San Mateo County. The nearest major arterial road is Brittan Avenue, about 0.1 miles
north of the project site. El Camino Real, a state highway, is about 0.3 miles west of the project
site. Regional access to the site is from US 101 via the Holly Street, Brittan Avenue, and Whipple
Avenue exits. Figure 1 shows the project location in a local and regional context. The legend of
Figure 1 shows the accurate directions; however, to simplify the discussion in this EIR, directional
references to north are truly northwest and references to south are truly southeast. The project site
is directly west and adjacent to an existing Best Buy (electronic retail store) and parking lot, both
of which will remain as part of the redeveloped shopping center.
G. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
The project site at 1133 Industrial Road is within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 046-221-270.
H. APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
The site is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, in the San Carlos Municipal Code. The project site is
designated “Regional Retail” in the San Carlos General Plan and the East San Carlos
Specific Plan.
I. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is within an existing, approximately 10-acre retail shopping center that includes a
vacant, retail building (Best Buy); an adjoining occupied, retail building; and a surface parking lot.
The entire shopping center includes about 186,500 square feet of retail space and a surface parking
lot with approximately 600 parking spaces. The project site is the western portion of the shopping
center that is already developed with an approximately 140,700-square-foot retail building, which
was previously occupied by a Breuners furniture store, and surface parking The eastern portion of
the shopping center is occupied by Best Buy electronics in an approximately 45,800-square-foot
retail building. Surrounding areas are developed with commercial business such as retail centers
and light industry. US 101 abuts the project site on the east. Existing landscaping at the project
site is moderate, including trees that primarily line the northern and western site boundaries and are
dispersed within the parking lot.
Page 2
OYG
W%
RU
US
$L
6DQ&DUORV
$LUSRUW
W
6
O\
G
5
D\
\Z
6N
O
+R
352-(&7
$5($
/(*(1'
6KRSSLQJ&HQWHU
6WHLQEHUJHU6ORXJK
,QG
W
O6
XV
LD
UF
WULD
H
P
3URMHFW6LWH
G
O5
P
&R
H
$Y
DQ
LWW
%U
&R
G
2O
YH
$
G
DU
5G
W\
XQ
Z
+R
W
6
Q
LFD
6DQ&DUORV
HU
$P
O
HD
5
LQR
DP
&
(/
YH
$
W
RQ
OP
%H
H
$Y
SOH
KLS
:
1257+
6RXUFH(,3$VVRFLDWHV
127726&$/(
),*85(
6DQ&DUORV5HWDLO&HQWHU3URMHFW6LWH/RFDWLRQ
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
6DQ&DUORV5HWDLO&HQWHU3URMHFW
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Buildings
The proposed redevelopment consists of the demolition and removal of the existing, approximately
140,700-square-foot retail building that was once occupied by Breuners. In place of that building, the
proposed project would construct a new approximately 95,940-square-foot, multi-tenant, regional retail
building, and a new approximately 12,100-square-foot, freestanding retail building in the northwest
portion of the project site. The proposed development would total about 108,040 square feet of new
retail space in the shopping center. Once completed, the proposed project would result in a net
reduction in developed floor area at the project site of 32,660 square feet. No zoning or General Plan
designation changes are proposed.
The new approximately 95,940-square-foot regional retail building would not utilize the entire footprint
of the old Breuners building; it would be scaled back by approximately 50,900 square feet and its
northern frontage would be aligned with and adjoined to the adjacent Best Buy building. Figure 2
shows the proposed layout of the San Carlos Retail Center. A portion of the existing parking lot would
be demolished and reconfigured. For fire protection purposes, the new building (consistent with the
existing Best Buy building) would maintain a 60-foot setback from the southern property line and
would maintain a 60-foot clearance on the north and west sides. Similar to the existing Best Buy
building, the truck loading area with room for five loading docks would be on the southern side of the
new building. The regional retail building would accommodate three regional retailers and one smaller
retailer. The three regional retail units would be about 21,596 square feet, 31,133 square feet, and
28,319 square feet, respectively. Regional retail tenants are expected to include businesses such as soft
goods/apparel, home goods, fabrics and crafts, sporting goods, pet supply (including services such as
veterinary, grooming, and boarding), and/or office supply. The space for the smaller retail tenant
within this building would be about 14,869 square feet, including a 4,000-square-foot mezzanine.
Typical hours of operation for the retailers would be daily from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.1
The new approximately 12,100-square-foot, freestanding retail building in the northwest corner of the
project site would be along the site’s Industrial Road frontage. Approximately 8,000 square feet on the
southern side of the building would accommodate businesses such as financial service providers and
general retailers (cell phone, beauty supply, home furnishings, retail optical, shipping/printing, etc.).
The northern 4,000 square feet of the building would feature a front patio area to accommodate light
food and drink service amenities.
1
SPI Holdings, Project Description – Regional Retail Tenant Mix, 2006.
Page 4
6RXUFH .HQQHWK5RGULJXH]3DUWQHUV,QF
),*85(
3URMHFW6LWH3ODQ
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
Although it has not been formally approved, a conceptual design has been presented to the City. The
design includes such features as walls with textured paint finishes and stone veneer, metal and canvas
awnings, cornices, decorative light fixtures, and painted aluminum framed windows.
Proposed Signage2
The existing pylon signs on the project site would be removed and replaced with new pylon signs to
identify the new retail tenants. The Industrial Road pylon sign would be relocated to the southern side
of the main driveway entrance on Industrial Road. The approximately 36-foot by 14-foot, illuminated
sign would provide space for ten tenant names and/or logos below a 7.5-foot-tall Best Buy logo. The
sign bases would be ledgestone veneer to match the building wall elements. The sign’s cornice and
column base caps, the column and pole converts, and the recessed background area would be fabricated
aluminum, texcoted, and painted to match the proposed buildings. The existing sign on the eastern
edge of the parking lot that is oriented toward US 101 would be refaced; the existing, black T-bar poles
would remain. The new, illuminated sign would be approximately 31-feet by 15-feet, and would
provide space for four tenant names/logos in an 18.5-foot by 15-foot area, next to a 12-foot by 15-foot
Best Buy logo.
Proposed Landscaping
The proposed project’s demolition phase would include removal of all interior trees on the project site,
including nine trees (Elm, Pittosporum, Sycamore, Eucalyptus, and Poplar) that meet the City of San
Carlos (the City) criteria for Heritage Trees. As part of the proposed project, a new landscape plan,
including 24-inch-box tree replacement plantings, would be implemented at the project site. Possible
plantings could include Cherry, Peppermint, or Brisbane Box trees; Jasmine, Lantana, or Sand
Strawberry ground cover; and Pittosporum or Rosemary shrubs. According to the City’s arborist
report, the proposed landscape plan would increase shade in the parking lot and would screen the
project site from adjacent properties and Industrial Road. The landscape plan would be required to
meet the City’s water efficiency guidelines as a condition of project approval.
Proposed Circulation and Parking
The proposed project would not reconfigure any existing roadways nor would it include construction of
any new roadways. The existing street pattern accessing the project site would remain. One new curb
cut is proposed on Industrial Road south of the proposed freestanding retail building and would provide
additional access to the parking lot.
The shopping center would provide a total of 606 parking stalls (594 standard stalls and 12 handicap
stalls). This number of spaces would exceed the City requirements of one per 300 square feet of gross
floor area by providing a ratio of one parking space per 250 square feet of retail space.
2
Pacific Neon Company, San Carlos Retail Center, April 28, 2006.
Page 6
Schedule
Construction of the proposed project would begin in the summer of 2007. It would be expected to be
completed and ready for occupancy by the end of 2007. The new stores would be expected to open for
business shortly thereafter.
Page 7
IV.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Dangerous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Services Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION
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 revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Elizabeth Cullinan
Name
Planning Director, City of San Carlos
Title
Page 8
A. LAND USE
1.
Setting
The project site is occupied by a single-story commercial building that was formerly occupied by
Breuners, a furniture retail business. The floor area of the existing building is about 140,700 square
feet (sf). Commercial businesses are the primary land uses surrounding the project site, including a
regional retail building to the east, Best Buy that adjoins the Breuners retail store, and light industrial
and retail centers to the north and south. Similar uses are to the west across Industrial Road from the
project site. The project site is within the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, which permits a
range of retail uses, as well as industrial activities. The San Carlos General Plan designates the
project site for Regional Retail, which includes retail uses.
2.
Environmental Checklist
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
1) Physically divide an established community?

2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

3) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on A.1. The proposed project would replace an existing regional retail building and part of
an existing parking lot. The proposed new retail uses would result in less developed floor area than the
existing Breuners, but the proposed project would include multiple tenants providing a wider range of
retail and commercial services. Since the proposed project would replace the existing furniture store
with other commercial uses, would occupy a smaller development footprint than Breuners, and is
surrounded by commercial buildings on three sides and US 101 on the fourth side, the proposed project
would not introduce a new use or design that would divide the surrounding business community.
Page 9
Comment on A.2. The applicable land use plans for the proposed project include:
x
The City of San Carlos General Plan (General Plan, updated through 1992);
x
The East San Carlos Specific Plan (adopted in 1991)
x
The City of San Carlos Zoning Ordinance; and
x
The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP, adopted in 1996).
Consistency with the City of San Carlos General and East San Carlos Specific Plan. In general, the
proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies and actions of the General Plan,
specifically the Land Use, Circulation and Scenic Highways, Noise, and Open Space and Conservation
Elements. The consistency of the proposed project with applicable General Plan policies, principles,
and actions is discussed in several sections of this document. Conformity with the Circulation Element
is discussed in Checklist Item F, Traffic. Conformity with the Noise Element is discussed in Checklist
Item J, Noise. Conformity to the Open Space and Conservation Element is discussed under Checklist
Item G, Biology. The proposed project’s compliance with the Land Use Element is discussed below.
The Land Use Element strives to “maintain and enhance the community’s balanced Land Use Pattern
consisting of Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Open Space, and Public Uses.” The proposed
project would be consistent with the land use designation and requirements for the project site, as
discussed below, and would thus be consistent with the Land Use Element. The General Plan
designates the project site as “Service and Convenience,” which includes areas used for retail.3
Therefore, the proposed project, which consists of retail businesses, would be consistent with the
General Plan designation.
Consistency with City of San Carlos Zoning. The proposed project is consistent with the M-2
designation for the project site because this zoning district permits retail and regional retail, subject to
Planning Commission approval. The building would be one story high and, at most, approximately
42 feet tall from the ground to the top of the roof. As the San Carlos Municipal Code permits
buildings up to 50 feet in the M-2 District, the proposed project would comply with the City’s height
regulations.
The M-2 regulations define a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0, and do not require front, side or
rear yards. The 435,650-square-foot site area encompasses both the proposed project and the existing
Best Buy building. The FAR for the proposed project and existing Best Buy building would be
approximately 0.35 (153,865 square feet of floor area on a 435,650-square-foot lot), within the
maximum allowed FAR. The proposed site plan for the regional retail center would not conflict with
the City’s setback or yard requirements.
The M-2 zoning district also includes development standards calling for a minimum of 10 percent of
the site to be landscaped with live plant materials. Furthermore, for sites over one acre, the
landscaping requirement increases by half a percent per acre, up to 2.5 percent. Since the site area
3
City of San Carlos 1992 General Plan, Land Use Element.
Page 10
includes 435,650 square feet, the required amount of landscaping is increased by an additional
2.5 percent. Thus, 12.5 percent, or 54,456 square feet, of the site area is required to be landscaped.
The proposed project would include 55,594 square feet of landscaping, or 12.7 percent of the site area,
without including the Best Buy landscaping. The proposed project would thus be consistent with the
City’s landscaping requirements.
The San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.140.040 requires 492 parking spaces for the 153,865
square-foot retail project (1 space per 300 square feet). The proposed project includes 609 spaces for
employees and retail patrons thus exceed code requirements. In summary, the project would not
conflict with Land Use and Zoning regulations.
Consistency with the San Carlos Airport Land Use Plan. State law establishes an Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) in each county to coordinate the compatibility of new developments near
airports. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) contains chapters that
outline land use policies for every airport in the county. The San Carlos Airport Land Use Plan
applies to the geographic areas in the vicinity of San Carlos Airport that are affected by aircraft noise,
and that are subject to restrictions on the height of structures and/or objects near the airport, and
airport/aircraft safety guidelines. Since the project site lies within some of the safety zones delineated
for the airport, the provisions of the ALUP are applicable to the proposed project.
The ALUC has adopted Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Air
Space, that defines areas (called imaginary surfaces in the regulations) where height restrictions apply
to natural and man-made objects.4,5 Development projects that lie within these areas are subject to
review by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for their potential effects on aircraft safety. In
addition, the regulations address potential light, glare, and air emissions that could distract aircraft
operators.
Because the proposed project is within the horizontal imaginary area, the project sponsors must obtain
a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from FAA before beginning construction of the
proposed project. Receipt of this determination from FAA signifies that the proposed project would
not impact the ALUP. The proposed buildings would be at most 42 feet high, which would be six feet
taller than the adjacent Best Buy Building and below the 50 feet allowed by the Zoning Code.
According to the San Carlos Airport Land Use Plan Cross Section Index, the imaginary surfaces height
restrictions at the project site are 152 feet. Thus, no conflicts with the ALUP are expected to occur.
Comment on A.3. The proposed project would not conflict with any known habitat conservation
plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local or regional conservation plans
because there are no such approved plans that apply to the project area.
4
5
Imaginary surfaces are imaginary planes around the approach/departure path that identify the objects, such as
a building, to be evaluated for consistency with FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, Chapter V, San Francisco International Airport
Land Use Plan, p. V.-1, V.-20, 1996.
Page 11
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on the division of the community surrounding the project.
The proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies and regulations regarding lot
coverage, and setbacks, nor would the proposed project conflict with the applicable ALUP or any
habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local or regional
conservation plans. Thus, there would be no significant land use impacts.
B. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1.
Setting
There are approximately 29,300 people living in San Carlos in 2005, according to estimates in the 2005
Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) projections. The average household size in the City was
about 2.39 persons-per-household in 2005. The population is expected to increase to 31,400 by 2015.
San Carlos provided about 16,950 jobs in 2005. ABAG projects that the City will provide about
19,460 jobs in 2015, an increase of about 2,510 jobs from 2005 to 2015.
No residences exist on the project site itself. The existing on-site commercial building is vacant and
thus does not support employment. According to the project sponsor, the proposed project would
increase on-site employment by 120 employees, based on the natures of the businesses that would
occupy the site. When compared to the 2,510 new jobs anticipated within the City from 2005 to 2015,
the net increase of 120 employees with the proposed project would account for five percent of this
anticipated growth. For informational purposes, if the Breuners building were to be re-occupied with a
similar retail use, the estimated number of employees would be about 200 employees, assuming an
industry average of about 700 square feet of retail space per employee.
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?

2) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

3) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Would the project:
Page 12
3.
Discussion
Comment on B.1. The proposed project would not directly result in additional residents in San
Carlos, because the proposed project would not include the construction of new housing units. As a
result, the proposed project would have no direct impact on population and housing in the City.
According to the project sponsor, the proposed project would increase on-site employment by
approximately 120 employees, based on the nature of the businesses that would become tenants of the
proposed buildings.6 Since the proposed project employment would be less than or comparable to the
number of employees when the site was occupied, the proposed project would not induce substantial
employment into the area and thus not have a significant indirect impact on population and housing.
The proposed project is an infill site, surrounded by commercial and industrial development.
Development of the project site would not involve extension of services or utilities into currently
unserved areas or the expansion of infrastructure capacity. Accordingly, the proposed project would
not remove existing constraints on development and thus would have less-than-significant direct and
indirect impacts related to growth inducement.
Comment on B.2 and B.3. The proposed project would replace a vacant commercial building with a
new retail center and reconfigure an existing parking lot. Thus, the proposed project would not result
in the displacement of housing or persons, or the replacement of housing elsewhere.
4.
Conclusion
The project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth, and would thus have
a less-than-significant impact on population and housing. The proposed project would not result in the
displacement of housing or persons.
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1.
Setting
Faults. There are several active and potentially active fault zones that could affect the project site.
The San Gregorio, San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville fault zones are all, at least
partially, historically active.7 The known active fault traces closest to the project site are those of the
San Andreas fault, approximately 4 miles southwest of the project site. Active traces of the Hayward
6
7
This estimate was provided by the project sponsor. The three regional retail tenants were estimated to
include 80 employees total; the 14,869-square-foot retail tenant was estimated to include ten employees (for a
shipping/printing or financial services tenant); and the 12,100-square-foot retail building was estimated to
include 28 employees (a specialty retail tenant with six employees, a financial tenant with ten employees, and
two light food amenity tenants with six employees each). Using industry averages of 450 square feet of floor
space per employee would yield an on-site employment of about 230 employees.
Bortugno, E.J., R.D. McJunkin, and D.L. Wagner, Map Showing Recent of Faulting, San Francisco-San
Jose Quadrangle, California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map Series, No. 5A, 1991, sheet 5,
scale 1:250,000.
Page 13
fault and the San Gregorio fault are about 15 miles northeast and about 12 miles southwest of the
project site, respectively. The project site is not crossed by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.8
Other faults that exist in the City, but outside the study area, are shown on the General Plan’s Seismic
Safety Element Geologic and Seismic Hazard map9 as faults of “unknown age.” These include the
Belmont fault, about 1 mile southwest of the project site, and several traces of an unnamed fault system
about 2 miles southwest of the project site. The Stanford thrust fault zone is another nearby ancient
fault, approximately 6 miles south of the project site. All these faults are pre-Quaternary in origin,
i.e., they were active tens to hundreds of millions of years ago, but have shown no evidence of activity
during the last 1.6 million years.
Seismicity. San Mateo County and the Bay Area are in one of the most active seismic regions in the
United States. Each year, low and moderate magnitude earthquakes occurring in or near the Bay Area
are felt by residents of the City. Since the mid-nineteenth century, about 2,000 earthquakes have
affected San Mateo County. The April 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas fault, estimated at about
Moment Magnitude (MW) 7.9 (M8.3 on the Richter scale), probably was the largest seismic event felt
in the City. Most recently, the MW 6.9 (M7.1) Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989 on the Santa
Cruz Mountains segment of the San Andreas fault caused severe damage throughout the Bay Area,
including about $294 million of property damage in San Mateo County, but no reported deaths in San
Mateo County.10
Liquefaction. Liquefaction in soil and sediments occurs when granular material is transformed from a
solid state to a liquid state because of increases in pressure generated by an earthquake. Earthquakeinduced liquefaction occurs most often in low-lying areas with soils or sediments composed of
unconsolidated, saturated, clay-free, uniformly sized sands and silts, but can occur in dry granular
soils, or saturated soils with some clay content. The General Plan’s Geologic and Seismic Hazard
Map displays a matrix indicating the likelihood of various hazards in each flatland and hillside unit in
the City. The project site is in the flatland unit A1 (fill over Bay mud). This unit exhibits a high
degree of hazard related to liquefaction.
Landslides. Because the project site and adjacent properties are nearly level, landslides are not
considered a hazard. Slope stability issues related to the sides of excavations are regulated by
Chapters 18 and A33 of the California Building Code as adopted by the City of San Carlos through
Ordinance 1326 Section 2 (part), in 2003.
8
9
10
Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act with index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey, Special
Publication 42, revised 1997, Supplements 1 and 2, 1999, Supplement 3, 2003, Online Version updated
7 October 2003.
City of San Carlos, General Plan 1992 Update, Geologic and Seismic Hazard map, 1979.
McNutt, S.R., “Summary of Damage and Losses Caused by the Loma Prieta Earthquake,” in: The Loma
Prieta (Santa Cruz Mountains), California, Earthquake of 17 October 1989, S.R. McNutt and R.H. Sydnor,
editors, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 104, 1990.
Page 14
Soils.11 The northeast half of the project site consist of Urban Land (more than 85 percent covered by
asphalt, concrete, buildings, and other structures) and the southwest half of the project site consists of
Orthents (poorly to excessively drained soils on tidal flats, floodplains, coastal terraces, alluvial fans,
and some uplands) Urban Land Complex. Soil properties such as drainage and erosion, expansion,
corrosion, strength, liquefaction potential, and limitations for septic tank filter fields are too
inconsistent in these soils to be characterized except on a site-by-site basis using subsurface
investigation methods.
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
California Geological Survey Special
Publication 42.)

b) Strong seismic groundshaking?
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?

d) Landslides?

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-A of the California Building Code (2001),
creating substantial risks to life or property?

5)

Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
2)
11
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Mateo
County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California, 1991.
Page 15
3.
Discussion
Comment on C.1(a). The project site is not in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Thus, the proposed project is not expected to expose people to potential substantial adverse effects
caused by the rupture of a known fault. There is no impact.
Comment on C.1(b). The City and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are in a seismically active
region. Recent studies by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicate that there is a
62 percent likelihood of a MW 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area within the next
30 years, and a 21 percent chance that one or more earthquakes of a MW 6.7 or greater will occur on
the San Andreas fault within the next 30 years.12 The project site could experience a range of
groundshaking effects during an earthquake on a Bay Area fault, particularly the San Andreas fault.
A characteristic earthquake on the San Andreas fault could result in violent (Modified Mercalli
Intensity IX) groundshaking intensities.13,14 Groundshaking of this intensity would result in heavily
damaged or destroyed masonry, damage to foundations, and shifting of frame structures (if not bolted
down) off their foundations.
Any development in the City would be required to comply with construction standards and seismic
design criteria contained in the California Building Code as adopted by the City. Chapter 16 of the
Building Code deals with General Design Requirements, including (but not limited to) regulations
governing seismically resistant construction (Chapter 16, Division IV). Chapters 18 and A33 deal with
excavations, foundations, retaining walls, and grading, including (but not limited to) requirements for
seismically resistant design, foundation investigations, stable cut and fill slopes, and drainage and
erosion control. The City of San Carlos has adopted the 1997 California Building Code as the City
Building Code and is the agency responsible for its enforcement in the City.
The project site is in California Building Code Seismic Zone 4, as is about 45 percent of the state, and
construction at the site would be required to meet the most stringent building code standards. Because
the project site would be within the 15-kilometer (9.3 miles) Near-Source Zone of the San Andreas
12
13
14
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay
Region: 2003 to 2032 - A Summary of Findings, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 03-214,
Online Version updated 17 May 2005.
Shaking intensity is a measure of groundshaking effects at a particular location, and can vary depending on
the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of underlying
geologic material at the project site. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is used commonly to
measure earthquake effects caused by groundshaking. The MMI values range from I (earthquake not felt) to
XII (damage nearly total).
ABAG, Shaking Intensity Map, www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/gif99/burls06m.gif, accessed November
14, 2005.
Page 16
fault, Building Code Section 1629, Criteria Selection, requires Near-Source Factors for Seismic Source
Type A to be applied to the design of structures in this Near-Source Zone.15
Although the potential for seismic groundshaking to occur at the project site is unavoidable, the risk of
excessive, permanent damage to the buildings is anticipated to be relatively minor because the
structural design would be required to adhere to City Building Code standards. Therefore,
groundshaking hazards are considered less than significant.
Comment on C.1(c). Because the project site is in a seismically active region, there is a potential for
seismic-related ground failure at the project site. The City’s General Plan’s Geologic and Seismic
Hazard Map indicates that the project site is in an area that exhibits a high degree of hazard related to
liquefaction.
Before construction of the proposed project, the City Building Code requires a site-specific soils report
that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive
soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including
provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The recommendations made in the soils report for
ground preparation and earthwork are required to be incorporated in the construction design. The soils
evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and the measures to eliminate
inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. The design for soil support of foundations must conform
to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City Building Code, Chapters 16, 18,
and A33. Compliance with the City Building Code would reduce liquefaction hazard at the project site
to less than significant.
Comment on C.1(d). Construction of the proposed project would need only the minimal grading
necessary to create foundations for buildings and pavement because the project site is not a steep or
unstable slope and does not have an irregular surface. Therefore, because the ground surface at the
project site is relatively flat and slopes nearly imperceptibly, because there are no steep or unstable
slopes adjacent to the project site, and because grading activities would be minimal, there is no
landslide hazard.
Comment on C.2. The proposed project is not expected to create substantial erosion or loss of topsoil
because most of the project site would be paved or landscaped. All construction activities would be
required to comply with Chapter 18 of the City Building Code, which regulates excavation activities
15
Near-Source Factors: California Building Code Section 1629.4.2 and Tables 16-S and 16-T define the areas
in which Seismic Zone 4 Near-Source Factors apply. The zones extend as far as 15 kilometers (9.3 miles)
from the ground surface projection of a known active fault plane. The Near-Source Factors and, therefore,
the standards for seismic-resistant design, increase as the distance from a construction site to the fault trace
decreases.
Seismic Source Types: Seismic Source Type A is described in CBC Table 16-U as “Faults that are capable
of producing large magnitude events and that have a high rate of seismic activity,” and is defined by a
maximum moment magnitude of MW 7.0. Seismic Source Type C is described as “Faults that are not
capable of producing large magnitude earthquakes and that have a relatively low rate of seismic activity,”
and is defined by a maximum moment magnitude of MW c6.5. Seismic Source Type B is described as “All
faults other than Type A and C,” and is defined by moment magnitudes between MW 6.5 and 7.0.
Page 17
and the construction of foundations and retaining walls, and Chapter A33, which regulates grading
activities, including drainage and erosion control. Soil erosion after construction would be controlled
by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans, as needed. Conformance with City
grading standards and the County’s Stormwater Management Plan (described under Checklist Item D,
Hydrology and Water Quality) would ensure that substantial erosion would not occur as a result of
construction and implementation of the proposed project. Consequently, this potential impact would be
less than significant.
Comment on C.3 and C.4. The project would conform to the City Building Code requirement that a
site-specific soils report identify any potentially unsuitable soil conditions and make design
recommendations accordingly, as described above under C.1. Because the proposed project would not
involve groundwater withdrawal, land subsidence is not expected to occur as a result of the proposed
project. Consequently, the proposed project would create a less-than-significant impact or risk to life
and property associated with soil instability or expansive soils.
Comment on C.5. Sewer mains are available to the project site and would be used for wastewater
disposal. As a result, there would be no impact related to the capability of the soil to support septic
tanks or alternative disposal systems.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would create no impacts related to fault rupture or seismically-related ground
failure. The proposed project would be required to conform to City Building Code standards and,
thus, would not expose people to significant geologic or seismic hazards. Conformance with City
grading standards and the County’s Stormwater Management Plan would ensure that erosion would not
result from the proposed project. There would not be any impacts related to wastewater disposal
through the soil, because the proposed project would be connected to the City’s sanitary system.
A geotechnical report would be required by the City and would contain recommendations for ground
preparation and earthwork specific to the project site which can be integrated into the construction
design. Thus, geologic impacts would be less than significant or nonexistent.
D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1.
Setting
The project site is in a developed area and is occupied by commercial structures. The project vicinity
slopes gently eastward towards the San Francisco Bay (Bay) at an average grade of less than one
percent.16 The City has a Mediterranean climate, characterized by dry, relatively cool summers and
wet, mild winters. The project vicinity receives an average annual rainfall of approximately
20.2 inches per year, with 85 percent of the rainfall occurring between October and April.17
16
17
United States Geological Survey, San Mateo Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1946,
photo revised 1956.
Desert Research Institute, Western Regional Climate Center, Redwood City, California NCDC 1971-2000
Monthly Normals, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?caredw+sfo, accessed December 22, 2004.
Page 18
The project site does not contain any natural surface drainages. The City storm drainage system serves
the project site. There is one 8- to 10-foot-wide, 3- to 5-foot-deep, unlined drainage channel along the
east side of the project site adjacent to US 101. Stormwater currently flows over land to storm drains
in Industrial Road and into the unlined drainage channel east of the project site. The channel drains into
Cordilleras Creek and eventually discharges to Smith Slough to the east of US 101.
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?

2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?

3) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?

4) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or off-site?

5) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?

6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?

8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?

Would the project:
Page 19
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
9) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?

10) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on D.1. The project site is about 435,650 square feet, encompassing the existing Best Buy,
the proposed new retail sites, and the surface parking lot. Existing site conditions include
approximately 416,005 square feet of impervious surfaces; the proposed project would include
replacement of approximately 21,615 square feet of the surface parking lot with new impervious
surfaces. There would be about 55,594 square feet of landscaping throughout the proposed project.
The proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surface area at the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the volume of stormwater runoff generated at the
project site.
The City is responsible to State and federal government agencies for maintaining water quality
standards set under the authority of the Clean Water Authority. As part of the requirements, all storm
drainage that discharges into public water is required to meet water quality standards outlined in the
governing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Because
the project site is greater than one acre, the proposed project would be required to obtain coverage
under the NPDES State Construction Activity Stormwater General Permit for the management of
stormwater runoff and pollution. Consequently, the proposed project would be required to prepare and
implement a project-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would
contain best management practices that may include schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution in
stormwater runoff during construction. The SWPPP would be reviewed and approved by the City and
other appropriate agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), prior to
issuance of a grading or building permit. In addition, because the City is a member of the San Mateo
County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), the proposed project would be required
to obtain coverage under STOPPP’s Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit and comply with
performance standards set forth by STOPPP’s Stormwater Management Plan.
Compliance with NPDES and County regulations would reduce potentially significant water quality
impacts resulting from the proposed project to less-than-significant levels.
Furthermore, sanitary wastewater generated at the project site under the proposed project would be
collected by the City’s sanitary sewer system and treated at the South Bayside System Authority
Page 20
Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is permitted by the RWQCB to discharge wastewater into San
Francisco Bay. (See Checklist Item L, Utilities and Service Systems, for further analysis of
wastewater impacts.) Thus, the proposed project would not violate waste discharge requirements.
Comment on D.2. The proposed project would not include any wells or other facilities that could
affect groundwater. The proposed project would connect to the existing San Francisco Water
Department (SFWD) Hetch Hetchy water distribution system. In addition, the project site is developed
and does not serve as a substantial groundwater recharge zone. Thus, no impact to groundwater
supplies or recharge is anticipated from the proposed project.
Comment on D.3 and D.4. The proposed project would not involve underground structures and thus
would not include excavation, other than for placement of foundation. However, the project site is
adjacent to unlined drainage channels that ultimately flow into the Bay.
The overall drainage pattern of the project site would not be substantially altered from existing
conditions. Upon final project buildout, no major differences in stormwater runoff rates or volumes
between existing conditions and proposed project conditions would exist. Also, no streams or rivers
would be altered by the proposed project, since none are located on or near the site.
Excavation and grading activities would comply with California Building Code requirements, which are
described in Checklist Item C, Geology and Soils, of this document. Furthermore, in addition to
NPDES and STOPPP compliance, described above, the project sponsor would obtain a grading permit
in compliance with the Municipal Code and comply with City grading standards. Compliance with
County and City permits and requirements would reduce potentially significant erosion and drainage
impacts during construction to less than significant.
Comment on D.5. The project site is almost entirely covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed
project would not change runoff generated at the site. The surface runoff generated at the project site
discharges to the neighboring unlined drainage channel, which ultimately discharges to the Bay.
Compliance with NPDES requirements, including post-construction water quality best management
practices, would ensure that impacts to surface water quality would be less than significant during
operation.
Because the project site is larger than one acre, project-related construction activities would be subject
to the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, which would include construction best
management practices to prevent significant erosion and subsequent water quality degradation via
stormwater runoff during site development. Municipal Code Section 13.14.120 requirements would
also apply, which would prevent dumping of litter and other materials into the adjacent channels.
Impacts to surface water quality would therefore be less than significant.
Comment on D.6. It is possible that, during the construction phase of the proposed project, polluted
runoff would flow into City drainage facilities and eventually reach the San Francisco Bay. Pollutants
typically present in runoff from construction sites include paint, lubricants, soil and sediment, and
debris. However, compliance with City requirements presented in Checklist Item D.1 and with City
Page 21
grading requirements specified in Section 18.20 of the Municipal Code would minimize the generation
of polluted runoff and reduce the associated impact to a less-than-significant level.
Comment on D.7 and D.8. The proposed project does not involve the construction of housing.
However, the project site is within a 100-year flood zone. As the proposed project would replace an
existing structure and surface parking lot and would not alter drainage patterns, the proposed project
would not impede or redirect flood flows.
Comment on D.9. The proposed project would not directly expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam. Levees along the San Francisco Bay shoreline are at elevations lower
(approximately 8 feet above mean sea level) than the project site (approximately 45 to 55 feet above
mean sea level); thus, floodwaters resulting from levee failure would not inundate the project site.
Also, the dam failure inundation map for the area created by the Association of Bay Area Governments
shows that the project site is not in or near a dam failure inundation zone.18 The proposed project
would have not pose a significant impact due to exposure to flood risks.
Comment on D.10. The project site is not near any enclosed body of water, nor does it lie in the
seiche inundation area delineated in the San Mateo County Hazard Map; therefore, the project site is
not subject to seiches. Tsunamis are large ocean waves, typically generated by seismic activity, that
historically have caused significant damage to coastal communities throughout the world. According to
the San Mateo County Hazard Map, the project site is not subject to tsunamis. In addition, the Map
Showing Areas of Potential Inundation by Tsunamis in the San Francisco Bay Region does not indicate
that the project site is in an area that may be inundated by a tsunami, assuming a run-up of 20 feet at
the Golden Gate Bridge. The level terrain of the site and surrounding areas precludes inundation by
mudflow. As a result of the above assessments, the proposed project would have no impacts related to
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would be subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit and the County’s
STOPP requirements. Furthermore, the City’s stormwater pollution and erosion control ordinances
would apply to the proposed project. The proposed project would thus have less-than-significant
hydrology and water quality impacts. The project would not affect groundwater, and the site is not
within any designated flood hazard area.
E. AIR QUALITY
1.
Setting
Air quality is monitored, evaluated, and regulated by federal, state, and regional regulatory agencies,
including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources
18
Associates of Bay Area Governments, Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map,
http//www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/damfail.html, accessed July 28, 2006.
Page 22
Board (CARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The EPA, CARB
and the BAAQMD develop rules and/or regulations to attain the goals or directives imposed by
legislation. Both state and regional regulations may be more, but not less, stringent than federal
regulations. The CARB establishes state ambient air quality standards and motor vehicle emission
standards, conducts research, and oversees the activities of regional Air Pollution Control Districts and
Air Quality Management Districts. Ambient air quality standards are established for criteria pollutants,
which include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate
matter, and lead. Reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are also regulated as
criteria air pollutants because they are precursors to ozone formation. With regard to particulate
matter, air quality standards have been adopted for suspended particulate matter less than ten microns
in diameter (PM10) as well as for smaller respirable particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter or less
(PM2.5). The San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the City of San Carlos, is in a state of nonattainment for ozone under both state and federal standards and non-attainment for PM10 under CARB
standards, meaning that the Bay Area does not meet the air quality standards for these air pollutants.
To comply with the California and Federal Clean Air Acts, BAAQMD, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments have prepared the Bay Area
2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. The intent of this air quality plan is to bring the San Francisco Bay Area
Air Basin into compliance with federal and state standards for ozone. The plan consists of adopted
measures, emission inventories, contingency measures, and demonstration of emission reductions so
that the region can attain ozone standards. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide suggestions for
screening potential air quality impacts for different land uses. The BAAQMD considers residential
projects greater than 510 apartment units, general office projects greater than 280,000 gross square
feet, and regional shopping centers greater than 44,000 gross square feet to result in potentially
significant vehicular emissions. Vehicular emissions are the largest source of air quality impacts
associated with these developments.
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?

2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?

Would the project:
Page 23
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors?

4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on E.1. As the project would not be expected to result in significant emissions of ozone,
ozone precursors or particulate matter (see Comment on E.2) with implementation of Mitigation
Measure E-1, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
BAAQMD’s air quality plans to bring the Air Basin into attainment.
Comment on E.2. The proposed project would generate short-term air emissions associated with
construction activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate
fugitive dust (measured as PM10) from grading, demolition, and other construction activities. Dust and
equipment exhaust generated by construction activities can pose a nuisance to sensitive receptors.
Therefore, dust emission would be a potentially significant impact on a localized level.
Emissions of NOX and ROG would be generated from operation of construction equipment.
Construction projects using typical construction equipment which temporarily emit ozone precursors
are already included in the emission inventories of state- and federally-required air plans and would not
have a significant impact on attainment and maintenance of air quality standards.
The proposed project would involve demolition of a large retail furniture store totaling about 140,700
square feet and construction of 108,040 square feet of new retail space. This would result in a net
decrease in retail space, putting the proposed project below land use screening thresholds in the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. However, the current site is vacant. As a result, vehicular trips would
increase with implementation of the proposed project. Vehicular emissions from the proposed project
would be considered potentially significant if they exceeded the BAAQMD significance threshold of
80 pounds/day.
Potential vehicular emissions caused by project-related traffic were estimated using CARB’s URBEMIS
2002 computer program. Operation of the proposed retail center would result in approximately 3,481
net new vehicle trips to the site per day. This trip generation figure of 3,481 trips is based on average
Page 24
daily trip numbers for shopping center land uses as found in the most recent Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. URBEMIS 2002 incorporates these daily trip rates into its
calculations. Based on URBEMIS 2002 modeling results, project trips would generate approximately
30.18 pounds/day of ROG, 30.14 pounds/day of NOx, and 22.70 pounds/day of PM10. Emissions of
ROG, NOx, and PM10 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds of 80 pounds/day.
Therefore, emissions from mobile (vehicular) sources associated with the proposed project would have
a less-than-significant air quality impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Using the methodology outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,
for projects with less than 4 acres per day of ground disturbance during construction, basic
control measures such as watering, covering loose materials during transport, and sweeping
would be sufficient to reduce PM10 to less-than-significant levels.19 Implementation of
Mitigation Measure E-1 below would reduce potentially significant localized dust emissions to
a less-than-significant level.
E-1.
Implement feasible control measures for construction emission of PM10. The project
sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during
project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and
staging areas at construction sites.
e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
Comment on E.3. Construction of the proposed project would contribute to air emissions in the San
Francisco Bay Area, which is designated as non-attainment for ozone at the federal and state levels and
PM10 at the state level. For the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative context is the San Francisco
Bay Area and the City of San Carlos. Combined with other proposed new development in the vicinity,
construction of the approved and foreseeable projects could have significant cumulative air quality
impacts. Approved projects in San Carlos include mixed-use, commercial office, and retail uses that
would total 104 residential units, 30,000 square feet of commercial office, and 13,500 square feet of
retail uses. Foreseeable projects in San Carlos include proposed residential, office, industrial, and
medical projects, as well as projects identified under the Draft East San Carlos Specific Plan.
19
BAAQMD. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April
1996, revised December 1999.
Page 25
Development of the cumulative projects would result in short-term increases in air emissions associated
with construction and demolition activities. Combined, construction of the approved and foreseeable
projects could have cumulatively significant impacts.
Individually the proposed project, as noted above, would temporarily increase PM10 emissions during
grading, demolition, and construction activities. These dust emissions would be a potentially
significant impact. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend that if the proposed project would
individually have a significant air quality impact there would also be a significant cumulative air quality
impact.
Construction equipment would generate ROG and NOx emissions through diesel exhaust during
construction activities. Since the Bay Area is designated as non-attainment for ozone, this project in
combination with other projects would contribute to an existing air quality problem. However, as
noted above, the construction equipment associated with the ROG and NOx emissions would be already
included in the emission inventories and would not have a cumulatively significant impact.
With respect to air emissions during operation of the proposed regional retail center, the primary
source of emissions related to the project would be from traffic. As noted above under Checklist Item
E.2, individually, the proposed project would result in project trips that would generate approximately
30.18 pounds/day of ROG, 30.14 pounds/day of NOx, and 22.70 pounds/day of PM10, all below the
BAAQMD significance thresholds of 80 pounds/day. Since the proposed project would not exceed the
BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, and PM10, the cumulative impact with the
proposed project on ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions would not be significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 would reduce the project
construction dust emissions to less than significant. Therefore, this measure would reduce the
project’s contribution to less than cumulatively considerable.
Comment on E.4. The proposed project is situated among commercial land uses, which are not
generally considered sensitive receptors for air quality impacts. Construction emissions would create a
potentially significant localized increase in PM10 emissions, which could be a nuisance to nearby
businesses.
Increases in traffic from the proposed project would contribute to localized CO emissions. The
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends that CO emissions should be estimated for projects with
vehicle emissions of CO exceeding 550 lbs per day or where project traffic would impact intersections
operating at Level of Service (LOS) D or worse. As shown in Checklist Item F, Traffic, the proposed
project would result in a net increase of approximately 301 PM peak-hour trips. This would not result
in an LOS D or worse at any of the study intersections under the future plus project conditions. Thus,
potential CO impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant.
As discussed in Checklist Item F, Traffic, cumulative traffic, which would include the proposed project
plus other foreseeable developments, would result in a potentially significant deterioration of
intersection service levels under cumulative conditions. LOS D or worse at any of the project
Page 26
intersections could be sufficient to create CO hotspots. Cumulative traffic and traffic-related air quality
impacts are discussed in detail in the Focused EIR.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 would reduce the impacts
of project construction dust emissions on nearby businesses to less than significant.
Comment on E.5. Shopping center/retail land uses are not among the land uses that the BAAQMD
has identified as prime sources of odors (i.e., wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, certain
manufacturing plants). Businesses in the project vicinity may experience occasional odors from diesel
equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings during construction. This effect would
be intermittent, would be contingent on prevailing wind conditions, and would occur only during
construction activities. The generation of diesel odors during construction would occur during daytime
hours only, would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity, and would
not affect a substantial amount of people. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
4.
Conclusion
With implementation of basic dust control measures specified in Mitigation Measure E-1, the proposed
project would not exceed significance thresholds for air quality standards during construction.
Operational emissions of the project would be primarily from the operation of vehicles and would not
represent a significant increase over existing conditions or exceed BAAQMD thresholds. The project
would also not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to excessive CO concentrations under future
plus project conditions or create objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project, would have a
less-than-significant impact on air quality after mitigation. Cumulative air quality impacts are directly
related to cumulative traffic impacts; both topics require further analysis and are discussed in the
Focused EIR.
F. TRAFFIC
1.
Setting
US 101 provides regional vehicular access to the project site. The primary local access routes to the
project site are Industrial Road, Howard Avenue, Brittan Avenue, and Holly Street.
Traffic operations at intersections are typically described in terms of “Level of Service” (LOS). LOS
is a qualitative measure of the effect of several factors on traffic operating conditions, including speed,
travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, and convenience. It is
generally measured quantitatively in terms of vehicular delay and described using a scale that ranges
from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing essentially free-flow conditions and LOS F indicating
over-capacity conditions with substantial congestion and delay.
LOS is based on average “control delay.” Control delay is defined as the delay directly associated
with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. These delay
estimates are considered meaningful indicators of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption,
Page 27
and lost travel time. Tables F-1 and F-2 present the relationship between LOS and control delay for
signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively.
Table F-1
Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
LOS
Average Control
Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A
< 10.0
B
10.1 – 20.0
C
20.1 – 35.0
D
35.1 – 55.0
Operations with tolerable delay. Many vehicles stop
and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
E
55.1 – 80.0
Operations with high delay, up to several signal cycles.
Long queues form upstream of intersection.
F
> 80.0
Operation with excessive and unacceptable delays.
Volumes vary widely depending on downstream queue
conditions.
Description
Operations with very slight delay, with no approach
phase fully utilized.
Operations with slight delay, and an occasional
approach phase is fully utilized.
Operations with average delay. Individual cycle
failures begin to appear.
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 2000.
Table F-2
Stop Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria
LOS
Average Control
Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A
B
< 10.0
10.1 – 15.0
Minimal delay for stop-controlled approaches.
Very light congestion; short delays.
C
15.1 – 25.0
D
25.1 – 35.0
E
35.1 – 50.0
F
> 50.0
Light congestion; average delays.
Significant congestion on critical approaches, but
intersection is functional. Moderate to lengthy delays.
Severe congestion with some longstanding queues on
critical approaches. Extremely lengthy delays.
Extreme congestion, with very high delays and lengthy
queues unacceptable to most drivers.
Description
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 2000.
Traffic conditions at the study intersections and freeway segments were analyzed for the weekday AM
and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour is typically between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The
PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. These are the periods of most congested
traffic conditions on an average weekday.
Page 28
Existing Traffic Operations. Hexagon Transportation Consultants completed the traffic study for the
proposed project.20 The existing traffic volumes were obtained from recent turning movement counts
found in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Traffic Study (January 2006). The existing turning
movement count used for the intersection of Industrial Road and Howard Avenue was from the year
2000. All traffic counts were conducted at times when the Breuners store was still in operation. The
City has traffic counts on file that show traffic volumes have not changed appreciably between the
years 2000 to 2006.
Existing Intersection LOS. The existing traffic volumes, intersection lane geometrics, traffic control
type, and other applicable data were input into the TRAFFIX software to determine levels of service.
The results under existing conditions are shown in Table F-3. All of the nine study intersections
operate at an acceptable LOS under existing conditions, according to the City’s LOS standards.
Table F-3
San Carlos Retail Center
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection
1. El Camino Real & Holly Street
1
2. Old County Road & Holly Street1
3. Industrial Road & Holly Street
4. Industrial Road & Brittan Avenue
5. El Camino Real and Brittan Avenue1
6. Old County Road & Brittan Avenue1
7. El Camino Real & Howard Avenue1
8. Old County Road and Howard Avenue1
9. Industrial Road and Howard Avenue
Peak Hour
Count Date
Volume to
Capacity (V/C)
LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
3/24/04
3/24/04
3/30/04
3/30/04
3/30/04
3/30/04
3/25/04
3/24/04
3/31/04
3/30/04
3/25/04
3/25/04
3/25/04
3/25/04
3/30/04
3/30/04
6/07/00
6/07/00
0.569
0.675
0.569
0.675
0.493
0.658
0.462
0.541
0.518
0.646
0.518
0.646
0.488
0.728
0.488
0.728
0.330
0.423
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
A
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2006.
Notes:
1
Adjacent intersections on El Camino Real and Old County Road were analyzed as one intersection, with the
V/C ratio calculated manually.
20
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Traffic Study for the Proposed San Carlos Retail Center Project
on the Breuner’s Site, October 19, 2006.
Page 29
Because the intersection of El Camino Real and Holly Street is recognized by the San Mateo County
Congestion Management Program as a facility of regional importance, it has also been analyzed using
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual method, which is based on average control delay time for all
vehicles at the intersection. The results under future conditions indicate that this intersection would
operate at an acceptable LOS C during both peak hours.
Existing Freeway LOS. The LOS for the study freeway segments was obtained from the 2003 San
Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Roadway Segments Level of Service Report.
Existing traffic volume data for the subject freeway segments were obtained from the Caltrans website
and are 2003 peak-hour volumes (both directions combined). The City states that traffic volumes have
not changed since 2003; therefore, 2003 data adequately represent current traffic volume on the
roadways.
Table F-4 summarizes the existing traffic volumes and LOS on the study freeway segments. The LOS
standards for freeways in San Mateo County vary from LOS D to LOS F according to the CMP. The
segment of US 101 between Hillsdale Boulevard and Whipple Avenue at LOS E in both directions,
while the segment between Whipple Avenue and the Santa Clara County limit at LOS F in both
directions. Based on the data in Table F-4, the study freeway segments north of Whipple Avenue
currently do not operate within the CMP standard.
Table F-4
Existing Freeway Levels of Service
Freeway
US 101
US 101
US 101
US 101
Segment
Ralston/Harbor to Holly St.
Holly St. to Brittan Ave.
Brittan Ave. to Whipple Ave.
Whipple Ave. to SR 84
# of Lanes1
Peak Hour
Volume2
Reported
LOS3
9
9
9
9
14,800
14,100
14,100
13,400
F
F
F
F
Notes:
1
Includes four mixed flow lanes and one auxiliary lane (equivalent to 0.5 lanes) in each direction.
2
Freeway count data were obtained from the Caltrans website. These represent combined volumes in both directions.
3
Reported levels of service were obtained from the 2003 CMP Roadway Segment Levels of Service.
Future Traffic Operations. Traffic volumes for future conditions comprise volumes from existing
traffic counts plus traffic generated by other approved development projects in the project vicinity.
Since there are no planned street improvements in the study area, the future street system is the same
as the existing street system. There are two approved developments in the project vicinity as of March
2005 that comprise the future projects list.21 The trip distribution and assignment for the approved
21
(1) 1000 El Camino Real (104 multi-family units, 8,500 square feet of retail); (2) 800 Brittan Avenue
(30,000 square feet of office).
Page 30
developments were taken from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Traffic Study.22 This study included
the most recent list of City-approved development, and the trip distribution percentages used to assign
the approved project traffic were directly obtained from the San Mateo County Traffic Demand
Forecast (TDF) model.
Future LOS. The approved trips were added to the existing volumes to produce the future traffic
volumes for the future scenario. The results of the LOS analysis under future conditions are
summarized in Table F-5. All of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better
under future conditions, and therefore satisfy the City’s mid LOS D standard. The results under future
conditions indicate that the intersection of El Camino Real and Holly Street would continue to operate
at an acceptable LOS C during both peak hours, in conformance with the CMP LOS E standards.
Table F-5
Future Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection
1. El Camino Real and Holly Street
1
2. Old County Road and Holly Street 1
3. Industrial Road and Holly Street
4. Industrial Road and Brittan Avenue
5. El Camino Real and Brittan Avenue
1
6. Old County Road and Brittan Avenue 1
7. El Camino Real and Howard Avenue
1
8. Old County Road and Howard Avenue 1
Existing
Future
Peak
Hour
Count
Date
V/C
V/C LOS
V/C
V/C LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
3/24/04
3/24/04
3/30/04
3/30/04
3/30/04
3/30/04
3/25/04
3/24/04
3/31/04
3/30/04
3/25/04
3/25/04
3/25/04
3/25/04
3/30/04
3/30/04
6/07/00
6/07/00
0.569
0.675
0.569
0.675
0.493
0.658
0.462
0.541
0.518
0.646
0.518
0.646
0.488
0.728
0.488
0.728
0.330
0.423
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
A
0.576
0.687
0.576
0.687
0.505
0.699
0.484
0.556
0.519
0.654
0.519
0.654
0.491
0.735
0.491
0.735
0.334
0.437
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
A
Note:
1
Adjacent intersections on El Camino Real and Old County Road were analyzed as one intersection, with the V/C ratio
calculated manually.
22
This document is available for review at the City’s Planning Department at 600 Elm Street, San Carlos.
Page 31
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio of roads, or congestion at
intersections)?

2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?

3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?

4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?

5) Result in inadequate emergency access?

6) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on F.1 and F.2. The proposed project would not be expected to result in significant traffic
impacts; however, under cumulative conditions, the project in combination with approved and
foreseeable development may result in substantial adverse effects.
Trip Generation. Trip generation is the term used to describe the amount of traffic entering and exiting
a project site. The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by applying
the applicable trip generation rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip
Generation to the proposed development (ITE Category 820). For the proposed project, shopping
center trip generation rates were used. Additionally, credit was taken for the traffic associated with the
existing Breuners furniture store, which would be replaced by the proposed project. This credit is
appropriate even though Breuners is vacant, because the existing traffic counts were taken when
Breuners was operational. Furniture store trip generation rates were used for the existing land use.
Page 32
The traffic generated by the existing Breuners is subtracted from the primary project trips to yield net
generated project trips. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate a net increase of 88
trips during the AM peak hour and a net increase of 301 trips during the PM peak hour. Table F-6
shows the trip generation rates for the proposed project.
The net project trip estimates shown in Table F-6 include a pass-by trip reduction (that is, those trips
that already pass directly by the project site and upon completion of the project would stop at the
project site en route to their ultimate destination). For this analysis, it is assumed that 10 percent of the
PM peak-hour trips associated with the proposed project would be pass-by trips. This estimate is
conservative based on the ITE rates, which show pass-by rates up to 25 percent for retail uses. The
volumes along Industrial Road are not high enough to support a 25 percent pass-by trip reduction;
therefore, a 10 percent pass-by trip reduction was selected.
Table F-6
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use
Size
Daily AM Peak
Trips
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Proposed Use
Shopping Center1
108,500
4,659
112
407
Pass-by trips
-466
-41
Primary trips
4,193
112
366
712
24
65
3,481
88
301
Existing Use
Furniture Store2
140,698
Net Project Trips
Notes:
The proposed project has undergone minor refinements and the traffic analysis here assumes a slightly
larger project than currently proposed (i.e., 106,450 s.f. versus 108,040 s.f.). As a result, the analysis
here slightly overstates the trip generation and impacts of the proposed project.
1
Source: Shopping Center (820) ITE Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003.
2
Source: Furniture Store (890) ITE Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003.
Project Intersection Levels of Service. Project trips were added to future traffic volumes to produce
future traffic volumes under project conditions. The results of the LOS analysis under project
conditions are summarized in Table F-7. The results show that all of the study intersections would
operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under project conditions, compared to the City’s mid-level
LOS D (V/C = 0.85) standard and the CMP LOS E standard. Therefore, the proposed project would
have a less-than-significant impact on the LOS of related roadways.
Page 33
Table F-7
Project Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection
1. El Camino Real and Holly Street
1
2. Old County Road and Holly Street 1
3. Industrial Road and Holly Street
4. Industrial Road and Brittan Avenue
5. El Camino Real and Brittan Avenue
1
6. Old County Road and Brittan Avenue 1
7. El Camino Real and Howard Avenue
1
8. Old County Road and Howard Avenue 1
Future
Project
Peak
Hour
V/C
V/C LOS
V/C
V/C LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
0.576
0.687
0.576
0.687
0.505
0.699
0.484
0.556
0.519
0.654
0.519
0.654
0.491
0.735
0.491
0.735
0.334
0.437
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
A
0.576
0.690
0.576
0.690
0.505
0.730
0.496
0.598
0.521
0.661
0.521
0.661
0.493
0.743
0.493
0.743
0.352
0.548
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
A
Note:
1
Adjacent intersections on El Camino Real and Old County Road were analyzed as one intersection, with the V/C
ratio calculated manually.
Project Freeway Levels of Service. Project traffic volumes on freeway segments were calculated and
compared to the segment’s capacity. The HCM specifies that a capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per
lane (vphpl) be used for freeway segments six lanes or wider in both directions and a capacity of 2,200
vphpl be used for segments four lanes wide in both directions. The study freeway segments are eight
lanes plus two auxiliary lanes wide for a total capacity of 10,350 vph in each direction. It is estimated
that the proposed project would add traffic representing less than one percent of the freeway’s capacity
to all the study freeway segments. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table F-8. Based on
CMP standards (i.e., for freeway segments operating at LOS F, significant impacts would occur if a
project adds traffic to the segment representing one percent or more of the segment’s capacity), the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on the study freeway segments.
Cumulative Intersection LOS and Freeway LOS Conditions. Potentially significant cumulative
intersection LOS and freeway LOS conditions impacts are discussed in the Focused EIR.
Page 34
Table F-8
Project Freeway Levels of Service
Existing
Conditions
Segment
Ralston/Harbor to Holly St.
Holly St to Brittan Ave
Brittan Ave to Whipple Ave
Whipple Ave to SR 84
Peak
# of
1% of
Hour
Direction Lanes1 Capacity2 Volume3
SB
NB
SB
NB
SB
NB
SB
NB
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
LOS4
Project
Conditions
Combined
Volume5 LOS
14,800
F
15,016
F
14,100
F
14,218
F
14,100
F
14,186
F
13,400
F
13,529
F
Added Project Trips
(highest peak hour directional
volume)
Added
Volume
% of
Capacity
53
56
53
0
19
0
31
29
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
Source: Hexagon, 2006.
Notes:
1
Includes four mixed-flow lanes and one auxiliary lane (equivalent to 0.5 lane) in each direction.
2
A capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) was assumed for freeway segments six lanes or wider in both directions, as specified
in the 2000 HCM.
3
Freeway count data were obtained from the Caltrans website. These represent combined volumes in both directions.
4
Reported levels of service were obtained from the 2003 CMP Roadway Segment Levels of Service.
5
Project conditions combined volumes include existing peak hour volume, traffic associated with approved developments (highest peak
hour), and project traffic (highest peak hour) in both directions of travel.
Comment on F.3. The proposed project would involve redevelopment of a regional retail center. No
aircraft use is required for operation or construction of the proposed facilities. As such, the proposed
project would not lead to an increase in air traffic and would have no impact on this mode of travel.
Comment on F.4. The proposed project does not involve design features that would cause or increase
hazards. Access to the new retail center would be through four existing entrances (three of which are
on Industrial Road; one adjoins the adjacent property to the south) and one curb cut that would be south
of the proposed pad building along Industrial Road. The project would be required to comply with all
City standards and requirements for construction of new driveways. The new entrance would be on
Industrial Road south of the proposed building pad. Pedestrian walkways are included in the project
design. There would be no increase in traffic hazards due to construction, because construction
activities would occur on-site. There would be no impact.
Comment on F.5. The proposed project would not affect emergency response times or access to other
sites in the area. Emergency access to the project site is expected to be adequate because emergency
vehicles would be able to reach the project site from four driveways on Industrial Road. The proposed
project would add substantially to delays at study area intersections under cumulative conditions, which
Page 35
could slow emergency response vehicles. The issue of police patrol cars, firefighting vehicles, and
ambulances traversing busy streets is faced in many communities throughout the Bay Area. Typically,
emergency response vehicles use sirens, and vehicles are required by law to move out of the way. On
streets in the project vicinity, an emergency vehicle could get through if vehicles move aside as they
are required to. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact to
emergency access.
Comment on F.6. The San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.140.040 requires retail uses to provide
parking at the ratio of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area of the retail space. Therefore,
the entire shopping center (proposed project plus Best Buy) would be required to provide a minimum of
492 parking spaces for the approximately 147,600 square feet of retail space within the shopping
center. The proposed project would result in a total of 606 parking spaces (594 standard stalls and 12
handicap stalls), thus exceeding City requirements.
According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, if there are between 25 and 50
total parking spaces, there must be at least two designated handicap parking spaces, with one dedicated
for van access. The proposed project would provide 12 handicap parking spaces, which would meet
the ADA requirements for handicap parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in inadequate parking capacity and there would be no impact.
Comment on F.7. The Bicycle Route Plan for San Carlos is part of the City’s General Plan and is
consistent with the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan (October 2000) which
outlines policies, goals, and objectives designed to be in concert with the individual city general plans and
bicycle plans. The City does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. Primary, existing bicycle routes in the
project vicinity are along Old County Road and Brittan Avenue. The proposed project would not
conflict with the adopted goals and policies of the County’s Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan because
the proposed project would not encroach into or otherwise affect a designated bicycle route.
The City’s General Plan encourages pedestrian sidewalks to be installed with new development. The
proposed project would not include demolition or installation of any public sidewalks because the
existing sidewalk on Industrial Road would adequately serve the proposed project. The proposed
project would include internal pedestrian walkways adjacent to the proposed buildings.
4.
Conclusion
The traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. The proposed
project is not expected to generate traffic volumes that would degrade intersection operations or
freeway levels of service to unacceptable levels except under cumulative conditions. The proposed
project would be consistent with adopted policies related to transit, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and
emergency response times. The proposed project would have a potentially significant impact for
intersection LOS operations under cumulative conditions. These impacts are addressed in the Focused
EIR.
Page 36
G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.
Setting
General. The project site is within the bay plain on the Mid-Peninsula of the San Francisco Bay Area.
The project site contains a vacant, single-story commercial building (previously Breuners furniture
store); a paved parking lot; and moderate landscaping around the existing building and along the edges
of the parking lot. There are 14 trees on the interior of the project site, nine of which are Heritage
Trees under the City standards. There are also 11 Heritage Trees along the north property line, but on
the neighboring property, approximately three feet from the project site.
Information on sensitive species and habitats occurring in the vicinity of the project site was obtained
from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles of
Woodside, San Mateo, Palo Alto, and Redwood Point.23 Sensitive plant or wildlife species are those
species listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS); listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG); designated federal or State species of concern by the USFWS or CDFG, respectively;
or identified as List 1B or 2 plants by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).
All sensitive species identified in the CNDDB search are found within wetland habitats associated with
the San Francisco Bay to the east of US 101, or in open space areas near the Interstate 280 corridor.
No sensitive species or habitats have been reported in the urban flat land areas of San Carlos. Since
the project site is entirely urbanized, there are no native species or habitats on the site.
San Carlos Municipal Code. Municipal Code Section 12.20, the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance,
indicates the intent and purpose of the ordinance is to preserve, maintain, and replant trees for the
health and welfare of the City. Removal of Heritage Trees, i.e., those that exceed 36 inches in
circumference or more measured at 48 inches above natural grade, would require a Permit to Remove
Heritage Trees from the Public Works Director. Under the Municipal Code, the existing ground
surface within the dripline of the heritage tree may not be cut, filled, compacted, or paved without
permission from the Director.
23
California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), commercial
version 3.0.5. Information dated January 18, 2005.
Page 37
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

3) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?

4) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?

5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on G.1 to G.3. The project site and surrounding areas have been developed and urbanized
such that no natural habitats that could support special-status plant or animal species are expected to
occur in this area. As stated previously, the project site consists of a building, paved parking lot, and
landscaping, and does not contain any natural surface drainages. There is a partially lined drainage
ditch that runs along the project site and the adjoining US 101; however, it is degraded and serves to
Page 38
convey runoff from the surrounding area. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to biological
resources.
Comment on G.4. Resident and migratory birds may use the on-site landscaping and trees for nests.
The proposed project calls for the removal of trees and landscaping vegetation, primarily along the
Industrial Road frontage and behind (south of) the vacant Breuners building. Thus, the proposed
project could result in disturbances to nesting birds that may be located on or near the project site.
Nesting birds, their nests, and eggs are fully protected by Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5)
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Destruction of a nest would be a violation of these
regulations and is considered a potentially significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. The following measure would reduce impacts to nesting birds within
the project area to a less-than-significant level.
G-1.
Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and implement protective
measures if identified. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be
avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent
possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no
surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey
for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than
14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings,
grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days
following the survey. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access
roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet of the areas to be cleared
or as otherwise determined by the biologist.
In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other
habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall
be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that
the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence
of second nesting attempts.
Comment on G.5. The project site contains existing trees lining the perimeter of the existing building
and parking lot. The proposed project would result in the removal of most of the on-site trees
including nine Heritage Trees, but would protect and maintain some trees along Industrial Road
(Brisbane Box street trees), on the property line to the north (Eucalyptus, Pears, and Stone Pines), and
on the portion of the site occupied by Best Buy, including the frontage along US 101 (Carolina Laurel
Cherries, Flowering Pears, and Redwoods). The Heritage Trees proposed to be removed on the
project site would require permits from the Public Works Director per the San Carlos Municipal Code.
The proposed project includes a landscape plan which proposes the planting of new ornamental trees,
ground cover, and shrubs around the proposed buildings and parking lot. According to the City’s
Page 39
arborist, the landscape plan for the proposed project would meet the City’s requirements regarding
replacement of trees.24
In addition to the removal of the on-site Heritage Trees, the proposed project could affect the Heritage
Trees on the northern border during construction. The trees are approximately three feet from the curb
of the existing parking lot, and construction of the proposed project includes the removal and
replacement of the existing curb and pavement. These construction activities could impact the
underlying roots of the trees; however, because the proposed curb and pavement replacement activities
would not result in excavation or grading beyond the surface soils, the proposed project would not be
expected to result in significant damage to the root system. In addition, the project sponsor would be
required to obtain permission from the Public Works Director to disturb the ground surface under the
dripline of a heritage tree per the San Carlos Municipal Code.
With the proposed project, there would be a net gain of on-site trees and construction activities would
not result in significant damage to existing Heritage Trees that are not designated for removal.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to protected trees.
The proposed project would not conflict with the local tree ordinance or other applicable local policies
or ordinances regarding biological resources. Therefore, impacts due to conflicts with local biological
policies or ordinances would be less than significant.
Comment on G.6. No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans have
been adopted that encompass the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with such plans.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on biological resources, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure G-1. Other than the Heritage Trees, there are no listed special
status species or sensitive habitats at the project site.
H. MINERAL RESOURCES
1.
Setting
Mining activities in California are regulated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)
of 1975. Based on guidelines adopted by the California Geological Survey (CGS – formerly know as
the Division of Mines and Geology), areas known as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) are classified
according to the presence or absence of significant deposits.
CGS Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors San Francisco and San Mateo Counties map
classifies the eastern portion of San Carlos, including the project site, as MRZ-1, which is defined as
24
Huntington, Richard, Certified Arborist, written correspondence with Stephanie Bertollo Davis, City of San
Carlos, April 17, 2006.
Page 40
an area “where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or
where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.”
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?

2) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on H.1 and H.2. There are no known significant mineral resources on the project site,
based on review of the CGS Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors San Francisco and San
Mateo Counties map. Furthermore, the site is not delineated as a locally-important mineral resource
by the CGS or on any land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on known
significant mineral resources.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on known significant mineral resources.
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1.
Setting
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) defines the term “hazardous material”
as a substance or combination of substances that, because its quantity, concentration, or physical,
chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either: (1) cause or significantly contribute to an increase
in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness; or (2) pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
Review of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database indicates that
the project site is not listed as a Federal Superfund Site (NPL), State Response Site, or Voluntary
Cleanup Site. A state response site, GTE Lenkurt, is about 0.3 miles west of the project site at 1105
Page 41
Old County Road. GTE Lenkurt was an electronic manufacturing plant that occupied the site from
1948 to 1983, and was certified as closed on November 1, 1983.25
A search of the Geotracker website operated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
revealed a Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) report for the project site. The LUFT report for
the project site does not identify when the release occurred, but indicates that the discharge substance
to be miscellaneous motor vehicle fuel. The site closure was approved in February 1993.26 The LUFT
report search also indicated a LUFT at a City-owned property at 1113 Industrial Road, about a block
from the project site. The site is listed as open and is currently being analyzed by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A search of the California Integrated Waste Management Board
facility listing indicated that the project site is not on or adjacent to a landfill.27
Based on the construction date of the existing Breuners building, estimated at around 1968, the building
has a high likelihood of including hazardous building materials such as asbestos, PCBs, lead, and
mercury. Federal, State, and local regulations govern the safe maintenance and removal of these
materials.
Asbestos. Asbestos is regulated both as a hazardous air pollutant and as a potential worker safety
hazard. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and California Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations restrict asbestos emissions from demolition and
renovation activities and specify safe work practices to minimize the potential to release asbestos fibers.
These regulations prohibit emissions of asbestos from asbestos-related manufacturing, demolition, or
construction activities; require medical examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities
that could disturb asbestos; specify precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to
minimize the potential to release asbestos fibers; and require notice be given to federal and local
government agencies prior to beginning renovation or demolition that could disturb asbestos.
California requires the licensing of contractors who conduct asbestos abatement activities.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). DTSC has classified PCBs as a hazardous waste when
concentrations exceed 5 parts per million (ppm) in liquids or when a standard extract of a non-liquid
exceeds 5 ppm. Electrical transformers and fluorescent light ballasts may contain PCBs, and if so,
they are regulated as hazardous waste and must be transported and disposed of as hazardous waste.
Ballasts manufactured after 1978, in general, do not contain PCBs and are required to have a label
stating that PCBs are not present.
Lead. Cal/OSHA standards establish a maximum safe exposure level for types of construction work
where lead exposure may occur, including demolition of structures where materials containing lead are
25
26
27
California Department of Toxic Substances Control website, EnviroStor Database,
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed July 10, 2006.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) website, LUFT Search Results,
http://www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/reports/luft.asp?global_id=T0608100083&assigned_name=MAINSIT
E, accessed July 10, 2006.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Facility Listing,
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/SiteListing.asp?VW=SWISNO&OUT=HTML&PG=INV&COUNTY=S
an+Mateo&NAME=&FAC=&OPSTATUS=&REGSTATUS=&LEA=, accessed July 10, 2006.
Page 42
present; removal or encapsulation of materials containing lead; and new construction, alteration,
repair, and renovation of structures with materials containing lead. Inspection, testing, and removal of
lead-containing building materials are to be performed by state-certified consultants and contractors
who are required to comply with applicable health and safety and hazardous materials regulations. The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has published guidelines for the evaluation and
control of lead-based paint hazards in housing. Typically, building materials with lead-based paint
attached are not considered hazardous waste unless the paint is chemically or physically removed from
the building debris.
Mercury. Spent fluorescent light tubes commonly contain mercury vapors at levels high enough to be
considered hazardous waste under California law. When disposed of at a municipal landfill, the
mercury can leach into the soil and groundwater. Existing regulations allow the generator to dispose of
up to 25 fluorescent light tubes per day at a municipal landfill if the light tubes are not considered
hazardous under federal law. Disposal as a hazardous waste would be required if a larger quantity of
lights is generated during replacement of existing lights or during a building demolition.
Hazardous Materials Transportation. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has developed
regulations pertaining to the transport of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes by all modes of
transportation. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has developed additional regulations for the transport
of hazardous materials by mail. DOT regulations specify packaging requirements for different types of
materials. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also promulgated regulations for the
transport of hazardous wastes. These more stringent requirements include tracking shipments with
manifests to ensure that wastes are delivered to their intended destinations. In California, the
California Highway Patrol, DOT, and DTSC play key roles in enforcing hazardous materials
transportation requirements.
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?

2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?

3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

Would the project:
Page 43
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?

5) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?

6) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?

7) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?

8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on I.1 and I.2. Construction activities would involve the standard use of fuels and
lubricants considered as hazardous materials or hazardous wastes. These materials are typical in
construction activities and the project sponsor would be required to submit a “Pre-Construction
Hazardous Materials Survey” and to manage all hazardous materials pursuant to regulations of the San
Mateo County Environmental Health Department and the Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department.
Implementation of these applicable health and safety requirements regarding standard construction
equipment would reduce impacts related to construction equipment to a less-than-significant level.
As noted above, the existing Breuners building may contain hazardous building materials such as
asbestos, PCBs, lead, and mercury. The use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during the
construction period are regulated by the BAAQMD, Cal/OSHA, DOT, USPS, EPA, California
Highway Patrol, and the DTSC.
Demolition of buildings containing such materials could disturb these materials and thus expose
workers, the public, and the environment to hazardous materials; however, these materials are subject
to regulatory oversight:
Page 44
x
Asbestos is regulated as a hazardous air pollutant and as a potential worker safety hazard.
BAAQMD’s Regulation 11 and Cal/OSHA regulations restrict asbestos emissions from
demolition and renovation activities and specify safe work practices to minimize the potential
for release of asbestos fibers.
x
Fluorescent light ballasts may contain PCBs, and if so, they are regulated as hazardous waste
and must be transported and disposed of as hazardous waste.
x
Cal/OSHA standards establish a maximum safe exposure level for types of construction work
where lead exposure may occur, including demolition of structures where materials containing
lead are present; removal or encapsulation of materials containing lead; and new construction,
alteration, repair, or renovation of structures with materials containing lead.
x
Lighting tubes typically contain concentrations of mercury that may exceed regulatory
thresholds for hazardous waste and, as such, must be managed in accordance with hazardous
waste regulations. Elemental mercury also can be found in many electrical switches which also
must be managed in accordance with hazardous waste regulations.
Accordingly, it is not expected that the proposed project would result in impacts related to hazardous
materials during construction. Additionally, the proposed project would not involve the use, handling,
or disposal of hazardous materials. Consequently, operation of the proposed project would not emit
hazardous materials and/or be expected to pose any risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances.
Comment on I.3. Based on a review of the School District’s website and maps of the City, the project
would not be within a quarter-mile of a school. Thus, there would be no impact related to the emission
or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
Comment on I.4. As noted above, the project site is listed on the RWQCB’s LUFT database for an
unknown release of motor fuel. Site closure for the project site was approved in February 1993.
There is a state response site and a LUFT site in the project vicinity. The state response site (GTE
Lenkurt site) was granted closure in 1983. The LUFT site at 1113 Industrial Road currently is under
review by the RWQCB. This LUFT site at the corner of Industrial Road and Brittan Avenue is crossgradient (north) of the project site and groundwater flows primarily in an easterly direction. Based on
the cross-gradient location of the active LUFT site and the closure status of the project site, there is a
low likelihood of contamination at the project site; however, there may be unknown contamination at
the site either from on-site activities or migration to the project site from nearby activities. Under the
proposed project, the site, which currently is fully developed and is covered by impervious surfaces,
would be uncovered and ground-disturbing activities would occur during demolition and construction
such as grading, placement of foundations, and landscaping activities. During ground-disturbing
activities, there is the potential for exposure of construction workers to unknown contaminants at the
site. This would be a potentially significant impact; however, Cal/OSHA would require development
and implementation of a construction period Health and Safety Plan (a standard Cal/OSHA requirement
Page 45
for work at a hazardous materials site) to minimize exposure from potentially contaminated materials.
Compliance with Cal/OSHA regulations would avoid potential impacts to construction workers to less
than significant.
After construction, the project site would be covered with impervious surfaces, with limited exposure
to soils in landscaped areas. The proposed project would not result in a land use change because it
would be used for retail purposes. Thus, the potential for impacts during operation would be less than
significant. The proposed project would not result in safety hazards during construction or operation as
a result of being on or near a known hazardous materials site.
Comment on I.5. The project site is within one mile of the San Carlos Airport and therefore is subject
to the airport land use plan that has been prepared for this airport. The proposed project could result in
air traffic safety impacts if the height of the proposed buildings would result in interference with air
traffic. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for determining whether the project
would result in a safety hazard for air traffic. The regulations address potential light, glare, and air
emissions that could distract aircraft operators. The height of the proposed buildings, at most, would
be approximately 42 feet above ground level. As discussed in Checklist Item A, Land Use, the
proposed project would not be expected to interfere with air traffic and would be expected to procure a
“Determination of No Hazard to Air” from FAA.
Comment on I.6. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would have
no impact on safety related to proximity to a private airstrip.
Comment on I.7. The proposed project would replace an existing buildings and parking lot, and
would not encroach on any major arterial roadways that could be used as an evacuation route in case of
emergency. As discussed in Checklist Item F.5, under Traffic, the proposed project would create a net
increase of approximately 3,481 average daily vehicle trips over the existing conditions but this change
in volumes would not be expected to substantially impede emergency response vehicles. Emergency
access to the project site is expected to be adequate and, with regard to busy streets, an emergency
vehicle could get through if vehicles move aside as required.
Comment on I.8. The project site is in a developed urbanized area and is not adjacent to or
intermixed with wildlands. The proposed project would not substantially alter the current exposure of
people or structures to potential hazards involving fires. Accordingly, the proposed project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
4.
Conclusion
The project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site and, under the proposed project,
hazardous materials would not be exposed at the project site. The operation of the proposed project
would not result in a significant release of hazardous materials or the exposure of people and the
environment to hazardous materials. The proposed project would not pose a significant safety hazard
to nearby air traffic, impact emergency response within the City, or expose people to wildland fire
hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant safety or health hazards.
Page 46
J. NOISE
1.
Setting
Background. Sound is created when objects vibrate, resulting in air pressure variations characterized
by their amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude is the
decibel (dB). The decibel scale is logarithmic; it describes the physical intensity of the pressure
variations. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure variation. The human
ear’s sensitivity to sound is frequency-dependent. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) measures sound
intensity while discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating that of the human ear.
Noise is “unwanted” sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background”
noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this
background is the noise from individual distinguishable local sources, such as aircraft overflights or
traffic on an adjacent roadway.
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room
surfaces is called groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle
velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). Groundborne vibration
levels vary from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level that is
barely perceptible by humans, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can
occur in fragile buildings.
Existing Noise Conditions. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include primarily commercial
uses. Existing noise sources at the project site include traffic on nearby roadways and US 101
(adjacent to the project site) and periodic aviation traffic associated with flights to and from the nearby
San Carlos Municipal Airport, approximately one half mile north of the project site.
The City’s General Plan Noise Element contains noise and land use compatibility recommendations for
evaluating the compatibility of new uses with the on-site noise environment. There are no policies in
the General Plan that deal specifically with noise levels for retail uses. However, the General Plan
does address related land uses, such as office buildings, where people are expected to spend several
daytime hours within an enclosed interior space and where noise is primarily generated outdoors
(traffic, deliveries, etc.). Under policies in the General Plan, office use noise levels are considered
normally acceptable with a CNEL of less than 70 dBA, while noise environments between 70 dBA and
75 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable for these uses, and noise environments greater
than 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable. Under conditionally acceptable or normally
unacceptable conditions, new development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise
reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the proposed
project design. New construction or development should not be undertaken in noise environments
exceeding the normally unacceptable standards. According to the noise contour map in the General
Plan, the project site had a noise level of approximately 60 to 64 dBA CNEL at the time (1990 to
Page 47
1991).28 A short-term noise measurements taken in 2005 north of the project site indicated a daytime
average noise level of approximately 73 dBA Leq for areas approximately 50 feet from the US 101.
The project site is approximately 250 feet west of US 101.
Policy 1 of the General Plan Noise Element requires use of the thresholds in the Noise Compatibility
Chart as a development criteria. This policy reads as follows:
Land use decisions shall be based on the Noise Compatibility Chart and acoustic reports
required for all developments in location where noise levels exceed the “normally acceptable”
range for specified land uses. If recommended in the report, mitigation measures shall be
required as conditions of project approval.
San Carlos Noise Ordinance. Noise levels are regulated in part by the City’s Municipal Code.
Section 9.30.030 of the Municipal Code prohibits any individual from producing noise that would
exceed ambient noise levels by more than 10 dBA. Section 9.30.070 lists certain activities that are
exempt from the noise standards of Section 9.30.030. This exemption applies to construction
activities, and would only apply during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays.
In addition to the above standards, the Federal Transit Administration has developed incremental
criteria that are commonly used to evaluate noise increments, particularly those due to transportation
sources. These criteria, as shown in Table J-1 below, become progressively more stringent as baseline
noise levels increase, and so are more protective of communities that are already burdened by high
noise exposure.
Table J-1
Federal Transit Administration Incremental Noise Impact Criteria
Existing Noise Exposure
(Ldn in dBA)
50
Allowable Noise Exposure
Increase (dBA)
5
55
3
60
2
65
1
70
1
75
0
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
28
City of San Carlos, General Plan, Noise Element, updated September 1992.
Page 48
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?

2) Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?

3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?

4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?

5) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?

6) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on J.1, J.3, and J.4. The Noise Element of the General Plan establishes 70 dBA CNEL as
the normally acceptable outdoor noise level for land uses similar to the proposed project. According to
the City’s General Plan, the project site falls within the 60 to 64 dBA CNEL, which is below this
threshold. The proposed project would not contribute to a substantial increase in the 24-hour average
outdoor noise level in the project area, as discussed below.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in intermittent short-term noise impacts resulting
from construction-related activities. Construction-related activities associated with the project would
include demolition, excavation, grading, and general building construction. As discussed above,
Section 9.30.030 of the City’s Municipal Code limits the hours of construction to 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays.
Construction is exempted from standard noise thresholds during these hours.
Page 49
However, during the hours permitted by the City for construction activities, project-related
construction noise would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity,
and thus result in a temporary but potentially significant impact. As shown in Table J-2, feasible
control measures, such as installation of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers), selection of quieter
machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g., surrounding stationary equipment with noise
barriers), could reduce noise generated by construction activities.29
Table J-2
Average Noise Levels of Construction Equipment with and without Controls (dBA)
Noise Level at 50 feet
Unabated
With Feasible Noise Control1
Front Loaders
Backhoes
Dozers
Tractors
Scrapers
Graders
Trucks
Pavers
79
85
80
80
88
85
91
89
75
75
75
75
80
75
75
80
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Crane
Derrick
85
82
83
88
75
75
75
75
Stationary
Pumps
Generator
Compressors
76
78
81
75
75
75
Impact
Pile Driver (Impact)
Jack Hammers
Pneumatic Tools
101
88
86
95
75
80
Other
Saws
Soil Vibrators/Compactors
78
76
75
75
Equipment
Earthmoving
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 1971.
Note:
1
Feasible noise control methods include installation of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers), selection of
quieter machinery from among available equipment and/or implementation of noise-control measures (e.g.,
surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), all of which require no major equipment redesign.
29
None of the mitigation measures suggested would require major equipment redesign.
Page 50
As shown in Checklist Item F, Traffic, the proposed project would result in approximately 3,402 daily
trips, 86 AM peak-hour trips, and 294 PM peak-hour trips over existing traffic volumes. This increase
in traffic volume would not create a significant increase in noise levels at any of the roadway segments
where sensitive receptors (in this case, residences) are located. Table J-3 summarizes expected noise
increases based on the level of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project and shows that
the noise level increase due to project-related traffic would be below the identified standards for
sensitive receptors.
Table J-3
Average Noise Levels Without and With the Proposed Project (dBA)
Noise Level at 50 feet
Sensitive
Use
Expected
Average
Without the
proposed
project
Expected
Average
With the
proposed
project
Noise Level
Increase due
to proposed
project
Industrial Road between Holly
Street and Brittan Avenue
Residential
62.2
62.3
Holly Street between Industrial
Road and Old County Road
Residential
63.7
Old County Road between Holly
Residential
El Camino Real between Holly
Residential
Roadway Segment
Significant Thresholds
City Noise
Ordinance
FTA
Criteria
0.1
10
2.0
63.7
0.0
10
2.0
59.1
59.1
0.0
10
3.0
65.3
65.3
0.0
10
2.0
Source: Numbers generated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise
(CALVENO) Emission Levels, and information from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Traffic Study for the
Proposed San Carlos Retail Center Project on the Breuner’s Site, July 13, 2006.
Based upon estimates generated using expected traffic counts and the FHWA Highway Noise
Prediction Model, changes in noise levels would be less than the identified thresholds in areas where
sensitive receptors currently exist. Therefore, increased noise generated by the proposed project would
be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would
reduce temporary noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure J-1 below
would ensure that construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
J-1.
Implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The project
sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be
implemented by the project contractor.
Page 51
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise
receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following
measures:
Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around
particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site;
Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit
transmission of noise to sensitive receptors;
Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community;
and
Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools.
Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other
quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall
be used whenever feasible.
d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in
conjunction with the San Carlos Planning Department so that noise-sensitive
areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.
f. The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for
construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to
any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration.
The
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and
would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.
Comment on J.2. Groundborne vibration would occur during project construction as a result of
demolition and construction. Activities that typically cause the most substantial ground vibration, such
as pile driving or blasting, are not proposed for this project. Of the construction equipment likely to be
used on site, loaded trucks and small bulldozers are the most likely to produce perceptible vibration in
areas close to where they would operate.
Vibration intensity is measured in vibration decibels (VdB). Vibration damage to fragile buildings can
be avoided by keeping their exposures at or below 100 VdB, while sleep disturbance in residential
Page 52
areas can be avoided by keeping exposures to residential structures at or below 80 VdB, if the vibration
events are infrequent (i.e., fewer than 70 per day).
Based on the construction vibration assessment methodology contained in the Federal Transit
Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, vibration levels for loaded trucks and
small bulldozers at varying distances from their locale of operation are presented in Table J-4.
Table J-4
Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
VdB1
Construction Equipment
25 Feet
50 Feet
60 Feet
75 Feet
100 Feet
86
58
80
52
78
50
76
48
74
46
Loaded Trucks
Small Bulldozer
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.
Note:
1
VdB = vibration decibels.
As shown in Table J-4, vibration from loaded trucks would fall below the 80 VdB residential sleep
disturbance threshold at distances of 50 feet or more from the areas where they would operate. The
project site is located in a commercial area, and the closest residences are approximately 2000 feet
away or farther. Vibration intensity is expected to be barely perceptible in residential areas. In
addition, the 80 VdB threshold is set for sleep disturbance and the City-imposed hours of construction
would not allow nighttime construction. As a result, the 80 VdB exposure would not occur when most
people are sleeping. The groundborne vibration impact of the proposed project would be less than
significant.
Comment on J.5. The proposed project is located within the airport land use plan for the San Carlos
Municipal Airport. The site falls within the 60 to 64 dBA CNEL, which indicates a 24-hour average of
noise levels. Overflight and backblast noise from aviation traffic occurs on the project site during
limited-duration events. Most airport noise impacts would be temporary and would occur infrequently.
In addition, the site would be used for commercial retail, which is not considered to be a noise
sensitive receptor. For these reasons, noise impacts related to airport activities would be less than
significant.
Comment on J.6. There would be no noise impact due to proximity to a private airstrip, because the
project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would increase outdoor noise levels and groundborne vibration in the project
vicinity due to temporary construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure J-1 would reduce the
impact from construction to less than significant. Impacts from groundborne vibration would be less
than significant. The proposed project would result in increases in permanent ambient noise levels as a
Page 53
result of project-generated traffic, but the increase would be considered less than significant as it would
be below the identified thresholds for sensitive receptors. A less-than-significant impact would occur
due to noise from aviation traffic.
K. PUBLIC SERVICES/RECREATION
1.
Setting
Public services for the project site are provided by the Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department; the San
Carlos Police Department; the San Carlos School District; and the San Carlos Parks and Recreation
Department. Descriptions of these services follow.
Fire Protection Service. San Carlos fire protection is provided by the Belmont-San Carlos Fire
Department. The South County Fire Protection Authority (Authority) provided fire protection service
through June 30, 2006. The Authority was dissolved and became the Belmont-San Carlos Fire
Department (Department) on July 1, 2006.30
The Department is a member of another joint powers authority (i.e., Fire Net 6) that dispatches and
provides emergency communication services with the Redwood City Fire Department, Woodside Fire
Protection District, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection San Mateo County Fire,
Menlo Park Fire Protection District, and the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District. A single countywide dispatching and emergency communication center in Redwood City serves the Department, as
well as the 17 other fire departments in San Mateo County. The Department currently has a boundary
drop emergency response agreement with all 17 San Mateo County Fire Agencies.31 This agreement
provides for the utilization of each agency’s personnel and equipment to ensure dispatch of the closest
engine available.
The Department operates two fire stations in San Carlos and two fire stations in Belmont. The two San
Carlos stations are identified below:
x
Station #13: 525 Laurel Street, about 0.5 miles south of the project site
x
Station #16: 1280 Alameda de las Pulgas, about 2 miles south of the project site
There are currently 36 full-time firefighters in the Department. Two paramedic engine companies and
one ladder truck company serve the City at a maximum response time of six minutes, 59 seconds for
emergency calls.32
30
31
32
Lowden, Chuck, Fire Chief, San Carlos Fire Department, Fire Options for San Carlos,
http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/gov/depts/fire/fire_service_options_for_san_carlos/default.asp, accessed June
26, 2006.
Palisi, Jim, Fire Marshal, South County Fire Protection Authority, electronic communication with Audrey
M. Darnell, Neal Martin and Associates, July 22, 2003.
Palisi, Jim, Fire Marshal, South County Fire Protection Authority, electronic communication with Audrey
M. Darnell, Neal Martin and Associates, July 22, 2003; Parks, Leslie, Director of Community
Development, City of San Carlos, electronic communication with EIP Associates, August 27, 2004.
Page 54
Police Service. The San Carlos Police Department (Department) provides preventative patrol and
emergency response service to the City. The Department headquarters are located in the Civic Center
Building at 600 Elm Street in Downtown San Carlos.
The Department currently staffs 36 sworn positions and 17 professional positions, which are divided
into several work units.33 While the Department does not have a service standard, there are about 1.28
sworn officers per 1,000 residents. This ratio is considered acceptable and effectively meets the needs
of the community.34 The Department’s emergency response time goal is five minutes for life
threatening calls and ten minutes for non-life threatening calls. Currently, no future staff growth is
anticipated because the existing number of staff sufficiently meets the City’s needs.35 However,
additional staff may be hired by the City if the City determines that additional staff is necessary to
maintain an acceptable services ratio standard as the City’s population or calls for police service
increase.36
The City’s Building and Planning Departments request input from the Police Department for new
development to ensure adequate emergency access for properties in the City.
Schools. The project site is within the service boundaries of the San Carlos School District
(kindergarten through 8th grade) and Sequoia Union High School District (9th through 12th grade).
Enrollment throughout the District is approximately 2,600 students, with approximately 300 or more at
each elementary school, 570 at Central Middle School, 460 at Tierra Linda Middle School, and
approximately 220 at San Carlos Charter Learning Center. Students in San Carlos may attend either of
two public high schools (Carlmont and Sequoia High Schools) operated by the Sequoia Union High
School District. Aurora High School, a local charter school, also serves San Carlos high school
students.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.37 The Parks and Recreation Department provides parks,
facilities, and recreational opportunities for all residents of San Carlos. The City provides 15 parks
and six recreation facilities that are within school grounds. The City currently has 144 acres of
parkland for 28,000 residents for a ratio of 5.14 acres per 1,000 persons. The nearest City recreational
facility is Laureola Park, an approximately 2.6-acre neighborhood park about 0.5 miles north of the
project site. Laureola Park provides a baseball diamond, basketball court, benches, picnic tables,
barbeques, play equipment, a recreation center, restrooms, and a soccer field.
33
34
35
36
37
Spagnoli, Sandra, Commander, San Carlos Police Department, electronic communication with Neal Martin,
November 8, 2005.
Arnold, Mary, San Carlos Police Department, written communication with EIP Associates,
January 10, 2005. The San Carlos Police Department’s existing service ratio was derived from the
following: 38 existing sworn police officers / 29,800 City population for 2005 §1.28 sworn officers per
1,000 residents. The San Carlos Police Department does not have a service ratio goal.
January 10, 2005.
Spagnoli, Sandra, Commander, San Carlos Police Department, electronic communication with Neal Martin,
City of San Carlos, September 12, 2005.
Weiss, Barry, personal communication with EIP Associates, June 2005.
Page 55
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
Fire Protection?

Police Protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other Public Facilities?

2) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?

3) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?

Would the project:
1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
3.
Discussion
Comment on K.1, Fire Protection. As stated above, fire services in the City are provided by the
newly organized Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department (Department). According to the City’s General
Plan, the project site is not within a wildland fire hazard zone.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s adopted Fire Code, consisting of the
2000 Uniform Fire Code with the 2001 California Amendments, including all Appendix Chapters, in
addition to local amendments. The Department will review various plans (including construction, fire
service water main, and Automatic Fire Alarm System plans) to determine conformance with the Fire
Code prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, the proposed project would be required to comply
with standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code (which has been adopted as the City’s Building
Code), which ensure quality of building design and safety.
Page 56
For fire protection purposes, the proposed retail buildings would maintain a 60-foot setback from the
southern property line, and a 60-foot clearance on the other sides. According to the City’s Fire
Marshall, although fire services staffing and equipment do not currently meet City needs,
implementation of the proposed project is not expected to impact to service levels such that new or
physically altered fire station would be needed. Thus, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact related to fire services.38
Comment on K.1, Police Protection. The proposed project would neither include residential uses nor
introduce other changes that would directly increase City population. According to the Chief of Police,
current staffing levels are adequate to serve the City.39 To minimize the demand the proposed project
may have on the Police Department, retail tenants would be required to have surveillance systems and
their own security for minor crimes, shoplifting, etc.40 As discussed Checklist Item B, Population and
Housing, the proposed project could decrease on-site employment. In spite of the reduced or similar
on-site employment, the proposed project would attract more visitors, which could result in an increase
in the number of service calls. This would not trigger a need for new or enlarged facilities that could
have adverse environmental impacts. Since the proposed project would not result in the need for new
or altered police protection facilities, it would result in a less-than-significant police impact.
Comment on K.1, Schools. The proposed project involves retail development and thus would not
result in an increase in students in the San Carlos School District. Consequently, the proposed project
would have no impacts to schools.
Comment on K.1, K.2, and K.3, Parks. As noted above, the proposed project could conservatively
result in on-site employment similar to levels when Breuners was occupied. These employees may use
nearby recreational fields and picnic areas during lunch time or before and after work. However,
according to the Recreation and Parks Department, the existing parks and recreational facilities would
be able to accommodate employees who would work at the proposed retail center.41
Therefore, the proposed project and the future employees are not expected to substantially increase the
demand on local parks and recreational facilities, and the proposed project would result in less-thansignificant impacts to parks and recreational facilities.
Comment on K.1, Other Public Facilities. Future employees of the proposed project are not
expected to routinely utilize other public facilities such as hospitals and libraries and thus are not
expected to impose a substantial demand on these facilities, such that new facilities would need to be
constructed or existing ones physically altered. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a lessthan-significant impact on other public facilities.
38
39
40
41
Palisi, Jim, Fire Marshal, South County Fire Protection Authority, electronic communication with Aubrey
Refuerzo, EIP Associates, June 26, 2006.
January 10, 2005.
Spagnoli, Sandra, Chief of Police, San Carlos Police Department, electronic communication with Aubrey
Refuerzo, EIP Associates, June 27, 2006.
Weiss, Barry, Recreation and Parks Director, electronic communication with Aubrey Refuerzo, EIP
Associates, June 19, 2006.
Page 57
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on public services.
L. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1.
Setting
Water Supply and Distribution. The project site is served by the California Water Service Company
(Cal Water) Mid Peninsula District, which serves the cities of San Carlos and San Mateo. Cal Water
serves portions of the City, including the project site. Cal Water is entirely supplied by surface water
from Hetch-Hetchy via the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). Currently, Cal Water does not
rely on groundwater, nor does it plan to use groundwater in the foreseeable future. During drought
periods, the City’s imported water supply from SFWD is subject to shortages, and water consumption
has to be significantly reduced due to an increase in rationing. Thus, many of the SFWD customer
agencies strive to improve the reliability of their water supply by developing supplemental water
sources, storage facilities, and emergency interconnections. In the event of an emergency, Cal Water
can serve or be served with inter-ties between neighboring utilities, including the Mid-Peninsula Water
District (MPWD), which serves other areas in San Carlos.42
Wastewater.43,44 The City’s Public Works Department provides wastewater collection for the City.
The wastewater collection system primarily connects homes and businesses to sewer mains (or
collectors) and sewer mains to larger transport mains (or trunks). The main pipeline that serves the
project site is a 27-inch sewer main that runs along Industrial Road. The sewer main then discharges
into a 36-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe that carries the total flow to a pump station on City
property, east of US 10l. The pump station pumps the flow for disposal to the SBSA Wastewater
Treatment Plant in the eastern portion of Redwood Peninsula in Redwood City. In 2003, the City’s
collection system delivered an average of 2.69 million gallons per day and an average dry weather flow
of 2.43 million gallons per day to the SBSA Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The SBSA Wastewater Treatment Plant opened in 1981 and replaced four older facilities along US 101.
The SBSA provides services to four major sanitary jurisdictions: Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City,
and West Bay Sanitary District, totaling over 200,000 people. The City purchases capacity rights from
the SBSA Wastewater Treatment Plant. The SBSA Wastewater Treatment Plant has a design capacity
of 24 million gallons per day (dry weather flows). The City of San Carlos currently has 3.7 million
gallons per day capacity rights at the SBSA Wastewater Treatment Plant. Approximately 300,000
gallons per day are still available. 45
42
43
44
45
Cal Water Mid-Peninsula District, Urban Water Management Plan, 2004.
Mid-Peninsula Water District, Urban Water Management Plan 2000-2005, 2001.
Bewley, Jim, Manager, South Bayside System Authority, personal communication with EIP Associates,
August 3, 2005.
Mohktari, Parviz, Department Director, San Carlos Department of Public Works, electronic correspondence,
July 19, 2006.
Page 58
The SBSA is responsible for operation of four pump stations, one force main, and a sub-regional
tertiary wastewater treatment facility, located at the eastern end of the Redwood Shores peninsula in
Redwood City. The SBSA is permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to
discharge wastewater into San Francisco Bay. There are currently no major constraints experienced by
the wastewater treatment system.46
Stormwater. The City’s Public Works Department constructs, operates, and maintains the storm
drainage system for the City. As described in Checklist Item D, Hydrology and Water Quality, there
is one 8- to 10-foot-wide, 3- to 5-foot-deep, unlined drainage channel along the east side of the site to
the east of the project site adjacent to US 101. Stormwater currently flows over land to the storm drain
in Industrial Road and into the unlined drainage channel to the east of the project site. The channels
drain into Cordilleras Creek and eventually discharges to Smith Slough to the east of US 101.47
During brief intensive storms, stormwater runoff exceeds the capacity of the existing storm drainage
system, resulting in localized flooding.
Solid Waste. Allied Waste Industries (AWI), formally Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI), provides
solid waste collection, transportation, and disposal services to the City. AWI also serves the
communities of Atherton, Belmont, Hillsborough, Burlingame, Foster City, Redwood City, San
Carlos, Fair Oaks, unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, Menlo Park, and West Bay Sanitary
District.48 AWI collects solid waste and hauls it to the San Carlos Transfer Station, located at 25
Shoreway Road in San Carlos, where readily visible recyclable materials are separated from gross
refuse. AWI owns and operates this facility, which has a permitted daily capacity of 3,000 tons.49 The
remaining solid waste is hauled to Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, at 12310 San Mateo Road in Half
Moon Bay, which is also owned and operated by AWI. According to Allied Waste Industries, the
landfill has a remaining life period through 2027 at current disposal rates.50 Furthermore, there are
places within the Ox Mountain Landfill where expansion could occur and non Allied Waste landfills
that could serve the City once the current facility reaches its capacity and is closed. 51
Applicable Plans and Regulations. Relevant regulations affecting utilities are contained in the City’s
Municipal Code and summarized below.
San Carlos Municipal Code, Section 13.04. This code requires individual projects to pay sewer
connection fees for single family residences, duplexes, multifamily apartments, condominiums,
46
47
48
49
50
51
July 19, 2006.
Fugro West, Inc. for Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Geotechnical Study and Geologic Hazards Evaluation,
San Carlos Center, July 2005.
Allied Waste Industries, http://alliedwastesanmateocounty.com/about_allied_waste.cfm, Accessed March 17,
2006.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Transfer/
TransProfile1.asp?COID=41&FACID=41-AA-0016, Accessed March 17, 2005.
Gunderson, Jim, General Manager, Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, electronic communication with Aubrey
Refuerzo, EIP Associates, July 10, 2006.
Gambelin, Papia, Environmental Programs Manager, Allied Waste Systems, electronic communication with
Aubrey Refuerzo, EIP Associates, March 17, 2006.
Page 59
commercial, retail, professional, institutional and industrial uses. The fees will be used for
improvement and expansion of sewer facilities, including the collection system and other purposes
allowed by state and federal law.
San Carlos Municipal Code, Chapter 8.05. All new construction and tenant improvement must comply
with construction and demolition debris recycling requirements pursuant to Chapter 8.05 of the San
Carlos Municipal Code. Under Chapter 8.05, the project sponsor is required to recover the maximum
feasible amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to demolition.
Before obtaining a demolition permit, project sponsors must submit to the Department of Planning and
Building a waste management plan that estimates (1) the approximate amount of resulting debris,
(2) the maximum volume or weight of recyclable materials, (3) the facility (including materials
recovery facilities) or vendor that the project sponsor proposes to use to collect that material, and
(4) the approximate volume or weight of construction or demolition debris that would be disposed at a
landfill.
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?

2) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

3) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?

4)

5) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Would the project:
Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Page 60
Would the project:
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
3.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact

Discussion
Comment on L.1, L.2, and L.5. The proposed project is an infill site, surrounded by commercial
and industrial development. Development of the project site would not involve extension of services or
utilities into currently unserved areas or the expansion of infrastructure capacity. The proposed project
would decrease the amount of developed floor space on the project site, but increase the intensity of
uses on the site.
With regards to wastewater, the proposed project would use existing wastewater facilities. The City’s
Public Works Department has determined that existing wastewater treatment facilities would be able to
serve the demands of the proposed project in addition to the existing commitments.52 As such, the
proposed project would have a minimal effect on the treatment plant’s ability to meet NPDES permit
requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Furthermore, San Carlos
Municipal Code, Section 13.04, requires individual projects to pay sewer connection fees to improve
and expand sewer facilities, including the collection system and other purposes allowed by state and
federal law. As such, the City determined that the proposed project would be adequately served by the
treatment plant and not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant
impact on wastewater.
Comment on L.3. The proposed project would replace an existing structure and a parking lot, and
thus would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the existing site. Because the proposed
project would not introduce new impervious area on site, stormwater runoff is not expected to increase
as a result of the project and the stormwater generated is not expected to significantly affect existing
stormwater drainage facilities. Furthermore, the City determined53 that the existing drainage facilities
would be able to accommodate the proposed project and that the proposed project would not require the
construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Comment on L.4. The proposed project would replace the existing on-site development with new
retail uses, which would have less developed floor area than the existing building, but would be
developed with more intense retail uses than existing. Because of the increase in intensity, water
demand at the project site would be expected to increase with the proposed project. Cal Water has
52
53
July 19, 2006.
Ibid.
Page 61
reviewed the proposed project description and has provided a “will serve” letter indicating that there
would be sufficient capacity to serve the proposed uses.54
Comment on L.6 and L.7. Project construction would generate solid waste in the form of waste
asphalt, structure demolition, and soil removal. Removal activities would be required to comply with
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations governing solid waste. Specifically, the project is
subject to the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 8.05, which requires the project sponsor to submit a
waste reduction plan. According to Allied Waste Industries, the development of the proposed project
would not be anticipated to have a significant impact on the existing landfill or transfer station.55 Ox
Mountain Landfill, the landfill used for final disposal of the material generated by the City, has several
years of capacity left, plus undeveloped areas for further capacity.56 Therefore, impacts on the City’s
solid waste capacity due to implementation of the proposed project are considered less than significant.
4.
Conclusion
The impacts of the proposed project on utility and service systems are considered to be less than
significant. The proposed project would comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the
relevant agencies, and would not create significant additional demand for water, stormwater,
wastewater, or solid waste facilities, according to the City’s Public Works Department and the local
solid waste and water supply provider.
M. AESTHETICS
1.
Setting
The proposed project would involve the redevelopment of an existing retail building, adjacent to an
existing Best Buy. The project site is surrounded by commercial development, including regional retail
and business parks, to the north and south; by US 101 and Best Buy to the east; and by Industrial Road
to the west.
The project site presently contains an approximately 140,700-square-foot, vacant, one-story
commercial building (previously occupied by Breuners) and a large surface parking lot north and west
of the building (see Figures M-1 and M-2). Landscaping includes individually scattered and clusters of
trees around the buildings and parking lot (see Figure M-3).
The surrounding retail areas and business parks include modern and well-maintained buildings,
moderate landscaping generally on the perimeter of the sites, and simple signage (see Figure M-4).
The adjacent 45,830-square-foot Best Buy building is about 36 feet tall at its peak and was constructed
in 2000. The Best Buy parking lot includes scattered trees and a large freeway sign for Best Buy and
Breuners (see Figure M-5). The stretch of Industrial Road near the project site is lined with trees,
well-maintained, and includes simple signage; the Best Buy – Breuners sign is the prominent sign in the
project area (see Figure M-6).
54
55
56
Low, Leighton, Construction Superintendent, Cal Water, electronic communication with Aubrey Refuerzo,
EIP Associates, October 11, 2006.
Gunderson, Jim, General Manager, Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, electronic communication with Aubrey
Refuerzo, EIP Associates, July 10, 2006.
Gambelin, Papia, Environmental Programs Manager, Allied Waste Systems, electronic communication with
Aubrey Refuerzo, EIP Associates, December 6, 2005.
Page 62
6RXUFH(,3$VVRFLDWHVDGLYLVLRQRI3%6-
),*85(0
([LVWLQJ1RUWKHUQ)DFDGHRI9DFDQW%UHXQHUV%XLOGLQJ
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
),*85(0
:HVW(QGRI([LVWLQJ%UHXQHUV%XLOGLQJDQG3DUNLQJ/RW
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
),*85(0
([LVWLQJ/DQGVFDSLQJDURXQG%UHXQHUV%XLOGLQJ
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
Source: EIP Associates, a division of PBS&J, 2006.
FIGURE M-4
Business Park North of Project Site
A Division of
D41225.00
),*85(0
([LVWLQJ866LJQDJHIRU3URMHFW6LWH
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
),*85(0
([LVWLQJ,QGXVWULDO5RDG6LJQDJHIRU3URMHFW6LWH
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
Views to the south and north of the project site include the immediate buildings within the surrounding
business parks. Views west from the northern edge of the site include surrounding buildings and the
peaks of distant hills. Views to the east include US 101, and open fields and scattered buildings
beyond the freeway.
The only State scenic highway in San Carlos is the Junipero Serra Freeway (Interstate Route 280),
which is not near the proposed project. The stretch of US 101 near the project site is not designated as
a State Scenic Highway. County scenic highways include Edgewood Road and Canada Road. City
scenic routes include Alameda de las Pulgas and San Carlos Avenue; Brittan Avenue, from Alameda de
las Pulgas to Crestview Drive; Club Drive, from San Carlos Avenue to Crestview Drive; and
El Camino Real. The proposed site is not on or near these County highways or City roads.57
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?

2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

3) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?

4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on M.1. For this analysis, a scenic vista is a vantage point with a broad and expansive view
of a significant landscape feature, such as a mountain range, lake, or coastline, or a panoramic view of
significant historical or architectural features. The project site is not part of a scenic vista because the
site does not provide a view of a significant landscape feature. Thus, the proposed project would have
a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas.
Comment on M.2. No rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or similar visual resources exist on the
project site, and the portion of US 101 that runs along the project site is not a scenic highway.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources in proximity to a State
Scenic Highway.
57
1992 San Carlos General Plan, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element.
Page 69
Comment on M.3. The proposed project would replace an approximately 140,700-square-foot, singlestory commercial structure characterized by a worn and bland façade (see Figure M-7) with a taller
approximately 95,940-square-foot multi-tenant commercial building characterized by varied massing
and materials. The proposed project would also introduce an approximately 12,100-square-foot
freestanding pad building for multiple retail tenants at the northwest portion of the project site. The
project design is not yet finalized; however, the proposed buildings could include walls with textured
paint finishes and stone veneer, metal and canvas awnings, cornices, decorative light fixtures, and
painted aluminum framed windows. The proposed project would alter the existing visual character of
the project site by increasing the relative height of the building occupying the site and adding on
additional building to the site. The proposed project would include buildings up to 35 feet tall,
approximately six feet taller than the adjacent Best Buy building. The new and more varied façade,
materials, and massing compared to the existing structure would result in a less-than-significant effect
on the project area’s visual quality.
The proposed project would reduce the footprint of the Breuners store to align with the northern façade
of the Best Buy building and decrease the lot coverage at the project site. The existing Breuners
northern setback would increase by approximately 97 feet to become even with the Best Buy building
(see Figure M-8). The new space generated by the reduced footprint would be replaced by parking
spaces. The proposed project would result in a continuous and more visually coherent retail frontage.
Furthermore, the proposed project includes a landscape plan that would introduce more trees to the
project site. The proposed project would result in the removal of most of the on-site trees including
nine Heritage Trees, but would protect and maintain some trees along Industrial Road (Brisbane Box
street trees), on the property line to the north (Eucalyptus, Pears, and Stone pines), and on the portion
of the project site occupied by Best Buy, including the frontage along US 101 (Carolina Laurel
Cherries, Flowering Pears, and Redwoods). The proposed landscape plan calls for planting new
ornamental trees, ground cover, and shrubs around the proposed buildings and parking lot. According
to the City’s arborist, the landscape plan for the proposed project would meet the City’s tree
replacement requirements.58
The proposed project would replace an old, vacant structure with new buildings, add variety and visual
interest to the project area, and would increase landscaping throughout the site, thereby adding visual
interest to the large surface parking lot, and complementing the varied building facades. Therefore, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on the existing visual character of the
project area.
Comment on M.4. The project site consists of a vacant building surrounded by other actively used
structures. Thus, the proposed project would introduce additional lighting elements into an area with
numerous light sources among the existing surrounding buildings. Existing lighting includes street
lighting throughout the Breuners and Best Buy parking lot, and adjacent business park parking lots;
street lighting along Industrial Road, freeway lighting along US 101, minimal signage lighting in the
surrounding business parks, and prominent signage lighting for the Best Buy building and freeway
sign.
58
Huntington, Richard, Certified Arborist, written correspondence with Stephanie Bertollo Davis, City of San
Carlos, April 17, 2006.
Page 70
),*85(0
([LVWLQJ(DVWHUQ)DoDGHRI9DFDQW%UHXQHUV%XLOGLQJ
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
),*85(0
9DULHG6HWEDFNVEHWZHHQ%HVW%X\DQG%UHXQHUV
$'LYLVLRQRI
'
The proposed project would increase the amount of light at the project site because it would include
two retail buildings seeking to draw attention to their store frontages through illuminated signs and
lighting. However, the proposed project is located in a commercial area, surrounded by commercial
structures with various lighting elements, and near US 101, a busy highway. Furthermore, building
signage would be subject to approval by the Planning Commission for a Master Sign Program per
Municipal Code Section 18.150.030. With regards to glare, Municipal Code Section 18.72.050
Performance Standards, part D, states, “Sky-reflected glare from buildings or portions thereof shall be
so controlled by such reasonable means as are practical to the end that such sky-reflected glare will not
inconvenience or annoy persons or interfere with the use and enjoyment of property in and about the
area where it occurs.” In accordance with this regulation, the buildings would not include high glaze
or reflective materials. Thus, lighting and building materials from the proposed project would not
create a substantial new source of light or glare, or adversely affect day- or nighttime views in the
area. The proposed project would thus have a less-than-significant impact related to light and glare.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas and no impact on
existing scenic resources. The visual character of or quality of the project site would be enhanced by
the proposed project through the replacement of an old, vacant structure with new buildings and
landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant aesthetics impact.
N. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1.
Setting
The project site is currently developed and includes a building, paved parking lot, and minimal
landscaping. Cultural resources are known to exist throughout the region, according to the San Carlos
General Plan59 and the San Mateo County General Plan.60
For the purposes of this analysis, cultural resources are divided into historic resources, archeological
resources, and paleontological resources.
Archeological Resources. Prehistoric archeological resources typically include chert or obsidian
flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bone, dietary
debris, heat-affected rock, and/or human burials. Native American cultural resources in the portion of
San Mateo County where the project is located are generally situated near the San Francisco Bay and
found on terraces adjacent to intermittent or perennial creeks or springs, along ridges, and on broad or
moderately wide midslope terraces.
59
60
San Carlos General Plan (1992), Open Space and Conservation Element.
San Mateo County General Plan (1986), Historical and Architectural Resources Section.
Page 73
A record search performed by the Native American Heritage Commission revealed no recorded Native
American cultural resources within the project site.61 A search performed by the Northwest
Information Center revealed that the project site is adjacent to a portion of one recorded Native
American archeological resource, a large habitation site characterized by shell midden, with flaked and
ground stone artifacts and burials. The Northwest Information Center has no record of an
archeological study for the project site.62
Generally, Native American cultural resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found
adjacent to the bayshore and inland adjacent to creeks. The project site is adjacent to the former
mashlands of the old bayshore. Given that Native American cultural resources have been discovered in
areas environmentally similar to the project site, and the ethnographic sensitivity of the region, there is
a moderate likelihood that unrecorded Native American resources exist on or near the project site.63
Historic Resources. Historic resources typically include stone or adobe foundations or walls,
structures and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits (often found in old wells and privies).
The State Office of Historic Preservation has also determined that buildings and structures 45 years and
older may be of historic value, depending on the integrity of the structure and other criteria that link it
to a historic event, person, or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method
of construction.
The existing structure on the project site is not a historic resource and State and Federal inventories list
no historic properties within the project site;64 thus, the project site does not contain historic resources.
The proposed project is located within a developed area containing modern commercial buildings. The
existing building on the project site was built in 1968 and the adjacent Best Buy building was built in
2000. A Northwest Information Center search did not reveal historic properties within the project
area.
Paleontological Resources. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains and/or traces of
prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such as
bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic deposits (rock formations). Although no
paleontological sites have been discovered specifically within the project site, paleontological resources
or prehistoric fossils have been discovered throughout San Mateo County, usually along the bayshore
and adjacent to seasonal and perennial freshwater courses. The project site is adjacent to a former
marsh boundary and thus unknown paleontological deposits could be encountered on site.
61
62
63
64
Pilas-Treadway, Debbie, Environmental Specialist III, Native American Heritage Commission, written
correspondence with EIP Associates, PBS&J, July 7, 2006.
Jillian E. Guldenbrein, Researcher I, Northwest Information Center, written correspondence with EIP
Associates, PBS&J, July 6, 2006.
Pilas-Treadway, Debbie, Environmental Specialist III, Native American Heritage Commission, written
correspondence with EIP Associates, PBS&J, July 7, 2006.
Page 74
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?

2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5?

3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature?

4) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on N.1. The proposed project would demolish the existing building and construct a multitenant building in its place, along with a freestanding pad building at the northwest corner of the
project site. The existing building is not a historic building. As construction of the proposed project
would not demolish a historic building and no historic buildings are near the project site, it is not
anticipated that historic buildings would be affected by the project.
Comment on N.2 and N.4. The project site does not contain recorded Native American or historicperiod archeological resources. However, the proposed project would have a moderate possibility of
encountering Native American and cultural archaeological resources since the site is in proximity to the
historic shoreline of San Francisco Bay and because known archaeological sites occur in the vicinity. 65
Construction activities could result in ground disturbance that would cause a substantially adverse
change in the significance of an archeological resource. Thus, impacts are considered potentially
significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce impacts to
cultural and paleontological resources to less than significant.
N-1.
65
Conduct protocol and procedures for encountering cultural resources. The following
provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address
the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources:
Page 75
a. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all
construction personnel shall receive environmental training that will include
discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources,
including training to recognize such possible buried cultural resources, as well
as the procedures to follow if such cultural resources are encountered.
b. If potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during
construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended and
alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site
investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant
retained by the project sponsor The immediate vicinity wherein work shall be
suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an
appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources
consultant.
Construction work shall not commence again until the
archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to
examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any
additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of
and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or
unique archaeological resources that have been encountered.
c. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource,
and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or
cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation
of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be
designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant
archaeological data to address important regional research considerations. The
work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources consultant,
and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be submitted to
the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction
in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current
professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed.
d. The project sponsor shall assure that project personnel are informed that
collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered
during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native
American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points,
mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary
debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include
nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits.
e. If human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent human remains until the project sponsor has complied with the
provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these
Page 76
provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If
the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify
the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely
descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the
Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains.
If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no
recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred with
appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not
accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem.
Comment on N.3. According to the study performed by the Northwest Information Center,
paleontological resources or prehistoric fossils have been discovered throughout San Mateo County,
usually on the western coastline and bayshore. Furthermore, while the project vicinity has been
developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded therein, paleontological
resources may be found at depths greater than previously disturbed. Construction activities could thus
disturb potentially occurring paleontological resources, thus resulting in a potentially significant
impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, above, would reduce
paleontological impacts to less than significant.
4.
Conclusion
There are no cultural resources known to exist on the project site based on archival research performed
by the Northwest Information Center. However, due to the history of the region and the location of a
recorded Native American archeological resource near the project site, unknown cultural resources
could exist on the project site. To prevent impacts to unidentified subsurface cultural resources,
Mitigation Measure N-1 has been recommended to ensure that impacts to cultural resources remain less
than significant.
O. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1.
Setting
The project site is developed and does not contain agricultural uses and is not agriculturally active land
or farmland.
Page 77
2.
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
No Impact
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?

3) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on O.1. Based on a review of the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,
no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide Importance are on or in the vicinity of
the project site. Since these types of farmlands do not occur at the project site, construction of the
proposed project would not affect farmlands by converting them to a non-agricultural use.
Comment on O.2. The project site is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, by the City, which does not have
provision for agricultural-related activities. The project site is also not located on land that is currently
under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural
zoning or conflict with Williamson Act land contracts.
Comment on O.3. The proposed project includes redevelopment of a shopping center in a developed,
urban area on non-agricultural lands. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not
convert farmlands to non-agricultural uses.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources.
Page 78