ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR FOR CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCSICO MASTER PLAN: GREENHOUSE SITE SHORT-TERM USE/CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROJECT

Transcription

1 ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR FOR CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCSICO MASTER PLAN: GREENHOUSE SITE SHORT-TERM USE/CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROJECT 1. Project Title 2. Lead Agency Greenhouse Site Short-Term Use/Construction Mitigation Project City College of San Francisco Administrative Offices 33 Gough Street San Francisco, CA Attn: Peter Goldstein 3. Preparers of the Impact Sciences 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1825 Oakland, CA Attn: Arlyn Purcell 4. Project Location and Setting The project site is located in the south-central area of the City of San Francisco, just outside the northeastern edge of the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Main (Ocean Avenue) Campus. The site is on the northeast corner of the intersection of Havelock Street and the northern extension of West Road, an internal CCSF road that provides access to the CCSF stadium and gymnasiums (refer to Figure 1, Project Location). The project site covers 37,050 square feet and is developed with greenhouses and associated structures. The greenhouses are oriented east-west and are constructed with plywood sides and either corrugated tin or fiberglass roofs. The associated structures are in the southeastern corner of the site and consist of two one-story buildings and a larger two-story home. The only other features on the site are a fence on the southeastern edge and a line of small shrubs along the western boundary of the site. There are no trees on the site. The site is flat, although West Road slopes up from south to north along the site s western edge, creating a difference in grade between the road and the site. The Generalized Residential Land Use Plan Map in the Residence Element of the San Francisco General Plan (adopted 1990) designates the site as residential land use (Source 1). The site is zoned for RH-1 District (Residential, House Districts, One-Family), and the other uses within the District are almost entirely single-family houses (Sources 2 and 3). The site is north of (across Havelock Street from) tennis courts (owned by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and maintained by CCSF) and the North Gym, and is east of (across West Road from) classroom bungalows, a parking lot, and the campus childcare center. These areas are all in the P (Public Use) zoning district. The backyards of singlefamily homes directly abut the project site to the north and east. These homes and the areas of small-scale, single-family homes further to the north and east are all in the RH-1 zoning district. City College of San Francisco 1 October 2004

2 5. Project Description This project would involve acquisition of the project site and the temporary re-use of the site as part of the construction plan adopted as mitigation for the CCSF Master Plan (described below). The existing structures on the site would be dismantled and removed as part of the proposed project. The shrubs along the western boundary of the site and the fencing along the southeast edge would be removed. Preparing the site for use would require minor grading and some excavation for the installation of an underground electrical line. In addition, CCSF would remediate soil contamination on the site in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, by either removing the contaminated soil and disposing of it at an accepted landfill, or capping the contaminated area. Once the site has been cleared and graded, the site would be covered with six inches of crushed rock from a local quarry. Access to the site would be provided from Havelock Street only. Total demolition and site preparation activities would take no more than 15 to 17 days, over a span of approximately one month. A specific long-term use for the site has not been determined, and the approved CCSF Master Plan (described below) does not include long-term planning for the site. Potential near-term, temporary uses on the site include (1) one or more one-story portable classroom/administration buildings, (2) an unpaved parking lot to offset construction parking, and/or (3) storage of landscaping materials. It is possible that all three uses would occur simultaneously. Regardless of use, the site would be lit for security purposes; lowprofile lighting would be used with cut-off features to minimize spillover. Use of the lot as parking would serve to offset parking lost in D Lot and the maintenance shop parking lot, as these lots would be used for construction parking for the Master Plan near-term projects. In this manner, the project implements the Master Plan by providing a temporary offset or overflow area during construction. Parking on site would serve as part of the construction traffic and parking program discussed in the. Parking on the site would require a permit and the lot would be closed after construction workers have left each day. Once construction of the near-term projects on the Main Campus is complete (expected by the end of 2006), no parking or other uses would be allowed on the site. Any long-term uses on the site would require a separate approval and the associated environmental review. Several features have been incorporated into the proposed project to minimize potential environmental impacts. These features are listed as measures at the back of this, and include: Construction dust controls; Construction archaeological monitoring provisions; Construction erosion controls; Remediation of site contamination; Construction noise controls; and Construction/transportation plan. Except for the construction/transportation plan, all of these project features are based on (and are consistent with) mitigation measures identified in the and adopted by CCSF. The construction/transportation plan was proposed by CCSF as part of the Master Plan, and is noted on p of the. CCSF has committed to implementing all of these features as part of the proposed greenhouse project. (Source: 4) City College of San Francisco 2 October 2004

3 [Figure 1- Project Location] City College of San Francisco 3 October 2004

4 This page left blank intentionally. City College of San Francisco 4 October 2004

5 6. CEQA Review On June 10, 2004, the CCSF Board of Trustees certified the Final EIR for the CCSF Master Plan. The EIR analyzed the environmental impacts related to approval and implementation of a Master Plan for the long-term development of the CCSF campuses. The EIR focused on the Main Campus and included construction of a Community Wellness Center and related near-term projects, construction of other projects identified in the College's 2001 bond measure, and possible implementation of other projects identified in a 2015 building program for Main Campus facilities. The CCSF Master Plan approvals provided for implementation of a construction plan to address construction-related traffic and to minimize the loss of parking spaces associated with construction of the Master Plan near term projects (Master Plan DEIR ). This Greenhouse project is part of Master Plan implementation but was not specifically analyzed in the Master Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) recognizes that after an EIR for a project is certified changes or additions to the project may be proposed. A supplemental or subsequent EIR should be prepared if such changes require major revision of the existing EIR due to the involvement of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, or the possibility that impacts of the project could be lessened by new or previously infeasible mitigation measures that the project proponent refuses to adopt. (14 California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines)). However, if post-certification changes do not result in new or more severe significant impacts, an to the existing EIR may be prepared instead, stating these conclusions. CEQA Guidelines This, organized in the same format as the CEQA Guidelines initial study checklist, evaluates the Greenhouse project and concludes that nothing triggers the need for a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Based on the professional traffic studies and substantial analysis of potential impacts described below, it is determined that the Greenhouse Site Short-Term Use/Construction Mitigation Project would not create any new or significant environmental impacts that were not already evaluated in the certified EIR, nor would it make previously identified significant impacts more severe. Likewise, no new information has been presented suggesting new mitigation measures that would substantially reduce the project s significant impacts that the project proponent has been unwilling to adopt. As a result, preparation of this to the is appropriate and satisfies the District s obligations under CEQA as the lead agency. The approach to this type of document is based on a comparison to the approved Master Plan and the, per CEQA Guidelines Section For each potential environmental impact, the will consider the following questions from CEQA Guidelines Section 15162: Would this project change the Master Plan in such a way that would result in a new significant impact, or a substantial increase in a significant impact identified in the? Have there been changes in circumstances since the preparation of the Master Plan EIR that would result in a new significant impact, or a substantial increase in a significant impact identified in the? Has new information come to light since the preparation of the that would result in a new significant impact, or a substantial increase in a significant impact identified in the? City College of San Francisco 5 October 2004

6 7. Approvals required: This document uses the CEQA Guidelines Checklist to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. To the extent that criteria of the City and County of San Francisco (the City s Initial Study Checklist) differ from Appendix G, those criteria will be referenced. Board of Trustees Approval The City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees must decide whether to approve the acquisition and short-term use of the greenhouse site. The Board of Trustees must consider the and this, along with any comments received, prior to approving the proposed project. City and County of San Francisco, Conditional Use Permit - In residential areas, temporary uses, such as temporary structures and uses incidental to the construction of a group of buildings on the same or adjacent premises, may be authorized for no more than two years (San Francisco Planning Code, Section 205.2). Such uses require the approval of the San Francisco Planning Commission and are subject to all the requirements for conditional uses as outlined in the San Francisco Planning Code, Section 303. Therefore, development of any of the uses on the site as temporary uses would require a conditional use permit. DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS New or Increased Impact Potentially Significant (Potentially Significant): A significant environmental impact that was not previously identified or is greater than the impact identified in the Program EIR. New or Increased Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (LTS with Mitigation): A significant environmental impact that was not previously identified or is greater than the impact identified in the Program EIR and can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, through adoption of mitigation measures. Less Than Significant New or Increased Impact (LTS): An environmental impact that was not previously identified or is greater than the impact identified in the Program EIR but is less than significant. No New or Increased Impact (No Impact): An environmental impact that was either not previously identified in the Program EIR but simply does not apply to the project, or is an environmental impact that was previously identified in the Program EIR but was found to: 1) not apply to the project; 2) be less than significant; or 3) be less than significant with mitigation that would be applied to the project. City College of San Francisco 6 October 2004

7 1. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Significant a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LTS with Mitigation LTS No Impact M a s t e r P l a n E I R According to the, development of the Master Plan would not result in significant impacts on scenic views. P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t Given the project site s location and the fact that no structure on the project site would be more than one-story tall, development of the site with any of the proposed uses would not result in the alteration of any scenic views. Thus, as was concluded in the, project impacts related to substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista would be less than significant. The project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the, the potential impacts to mature trees as a scenic resource from development of the Master Plan would be significant. The included mitigation measures aimed at minimizing impacts to mature trees found on the Main Campus. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to trees as a scenic resource to a less-than-significant level. Other visual features on the campus would not be negatively affected by Master Plan buildout. No trees or other scenic resource are located on the project site. In addition the project site is not near a state scenic highway. The project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue. Source: 5. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The concluded that the general effect of Master Plan buildout would be to extend the mass and scale of campus buildings to the west of Phelan Avenue. The resulting visual character could also be perceived as less open, more built-up, and larger scale. Despite implementation of mitigation measures aimed at reducing the perceived scale of Master Plan structures, the potential impact to visual character would remain significant. The project site is completely developed with six greenhouses and three buildings. In addition, portable buildings and a parking lot are located across West Road to the west and a parking lot (N-Lot) is located across Havelock Street to the south. If the site were used for one or more one-story portable classroom/administrative buildings, these structures would be of similar scale to the existing structures, but the reduction in the number of structures would allow for more open area on the site. Using the site as an unpaved parking lot or as a landscaping storage area would further reduce both the scale and built-up nature City College of San Francisco 7 October 2004

8 of the site uses. Although it is possible that some residents would not consider a gravel lot, parked cars, landscaping storage, and portable structures an improvement over the visual character of the area, these uses would be similar in scale and type to present uses found to the west and south of the site. As a result, conversion of the site would not represent a substantial degradation of the visual character of the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant new or increased impacts related to visual character. Source: 5 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The area of the campus is urban and already has numerous lighting sources. As such, the concluded that the visual impacts associated with the introduction of and increase in light sources were considered less than significant. All of the proposed uses of the site would create new sources of light and glare. Specifically, all uses would require lighting of the site for security purposes. Use as a parking lot could introduce light and glare issues associated with car headlights. As noted in the, the visual impacts associated with the introduction of and increase in light sources are considered less than significant as a result of the urban nature of the campus, the existing sources of light and glare, and the variation in topography of the area (the houses to the north of the site are at a higher elevation than the site). In addition, these impacts would be minimized through the proposed installation of low-profile lighting with cut-off features meant to reduce lighting spillover onto adjacent properties. As such, the impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant and consistent with the impacts identified in the. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Significant LTS with Mitigation LTS No Impact a) 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? The concluded that the CCSF Main Campus is completely developed and is surrounded by urban uses. There would be no impacts to farmlands due to the proposed project. The greenhouses are currently being rented for the growing of various species of orchids. Although this activity is agricultural in nature, it is being carried out indoors. In addition, the site is zoned RH-1 (Residential, House Districts, One-Family) and is surrounded by urban uses. Therefore, as was concluded in City College of San Francisco 8 October 2004

9 the, there would be no impacts to farmlands due to the proposed project. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? See response to 2a. The project site is zoned RH-1 (Residential, House Districts, One-Family). c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? See response to 2a. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant LTS with Mitigation LTS No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? According to the, during the construction phase of development of individual Main Campus Master Plan projects, emissions would be generated by on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use. In addition, fugitive dust would be generated during grading and construction activities. Although much of this airborne dust would settle out on, or near, the individual project sites, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing existing particulate levels within the surrounding area. Although the project s construction-related emissions would be temporary in duration, in the absence of control measures, they could be substantial. The includes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District s (BAAQMD) dust control mitigation measures. The Master Plan EIR concludes that implementation of these measures would reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. With Master Plan buildout, the project operational emissions would exceed the BAAQMD-recommended thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG) and particulate matter (PM 10 ). CCSF is committed to implementation of a transportation demand management (TDM) program. Nevertheless, since implementation of all of the TDM measures is not guaranteed and the exact effectiveness is not known at this time, the air quality impacts from operational emissions are considered significant after mitigation. As with Master Plan development, the construction phase of the project would generate emissions from on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use. Fugitive dust associated with the project would be expected to be minimal as the proposed project would require grading only as needed to prepare the site for the gravel layer, and earthwork would be needed only to install underground electric lines and remediate the site soil contamination. However, the project would result in construction-phase emissions similar to those discussed in, but not specifically accounted for in the Master Plan EIR. To minimize emissions related to construction activities, CCSF would incorporate into the Greenhouse project the dust control measures adopted as part of the Master Plan in accordance to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (these measures are listed at the end of this document). Implementation of these measures would ensure that air quality impacts during construction would be less than significant. City College of San Francisco 9 October 2004

10 Operational emissions are composed of direct emissions (i.e., on-site stationary sources such as emergency generators or boilers) and indirect emissions (i.e., mobile sources that access the site but generally emit offsite). None of the proposed uses of the site would include any on-site stationary sources of emissions. Instead, the primary sources of operational emissions would be from motor vehicles. The traffic that would be generated by development of the site as a parking lot has been accounted for in the EIR analysis for the Master Plan, as this parking lot would be used to offset the parking lost in Lot D and the maintenance shop parking lot during construction. Given the limited size and proposed temporary uses of the site, any traffic that may be associated with use of the site for portable building(s) or landscaping storage would be minimal (e.g., one set of trips each to deliver or pick up plant materials during the entire period of site use). The emissions associated with this small amount of traffic would not exceed BAAQMD s thresholds for either operational emissions or localized carbon monoxide concentrations, and would not add substantially to the emissions resulting from the Master Plan. Therefore, operation-related air quality impacts associated with development of the project site would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? See response to 3a. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. As noted in the, the Master Plan would exceed the BAAQMD-recommended operational emissions thresholds for individual projects, and thus the cumulative air quality impacts would be considered significant. As noted previously, the emissions related to the proposed project have already been addressed by the Master Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, relative to what was studied in the. The proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? According to the Master Plan, in the vicinity of the Main Campus, sensitive air quality receptors include residential areas to the west of the Balboa Reservoir and across Judson Avenue, Havelock Street, and Ocean Avenue; Balboa Park across I-280; and two private high schools adjacent to the campus. Sensitive receptors in the project site area include the residential areas to the north and east of the project site. As noted in the response to 3a, the emissions related to the proposed project have already been addressed by the. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial increase in pollutant concentrations, relative to what was studied in the. The proposed project would not City College of San Francisco 10 October 2004

11 result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? As noted in the, the uses proposed as part of the Maser Plan would not be substantial sources of odor. The uses proposed for the site are not uses identified by the BAAQMD as uses that typically result in significant odor impacts. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant a) 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? LTS with Mitigation LTS No impact The found that depending on the number and extent of nests on the campus that may be disturbed or removed and the rarity of the species affected, the loss of active nests from tree removal related to the Master Plan could be a significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures to avoid impacts to existing bird nests would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The project site is almost completely covered with buildings and pavement. A small, disturbed area of shrubs and open ground bounds the western end of the site. This area does not have the characteristics to support any candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Furthermore, there are no trees on the project site. Source: 5 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? According to the, the Main Campus is completely developed, does not contain any riparian habitat, and is not identified in any adopted plans as having sensitive natural communities. The project site is completely developed and does not contain any riparian habitat, and is not identified in any adopted plans as having sensitive natural communities. Source: 5 City College of San Francisco 11 October 2004

12 c) 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? According to the, the Main Campus is completely developed and there are no wetlands on the campus. The project site is completely developed and does not contain any wetlands. Source: 5 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The noted that the campus does not provide any wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites. The project site is completely developed and is within a highly urban area, and thus is not part of a wildlife corridor. No further discussion is necessary. Source: 5 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? As noted in the Master Plan, because of the urbanized nature of the campus and surrounding area, there are no impacts with respect to biological resources protected by local policies except for the trees that would be removed for construction reasons. Implementation of mitigation measures to minimize tree removal and replace trees that are removed (noted under Aesthetics, above) would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. There are no trees or significant biological resources on the project site.. Source: 5 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The noted that there are no adopted habitat conservation plans that apply to the Main City College of San Francisco 12 October 2004

13 Campus. The project site is completely developed and there are no adopted habitat conservation plans that apply to the area. Source: 5 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? LTS with Mitigation LTS No Impact None of the identified historic resources on the campus would be affected by proposed building demolition. Although the concluded that the Creative and Visual Arts Complex buildings were not considered historic resources (at the time the EIR was written), they could be considered historic resources by they time they are renovated as part of the Master Plan. If the complex proves to be an historic resource upon the time of renovation, implementation of mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the Secretary of Interior s Standards would result in a less-than-significant impact. A review of aerial photographs and Sanborn maps conducted for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment found that greenhouses have occupied the majority of the project site since about Although the Phase I did not determine the age of any structures on the site, the current owner of the property indicated in an interview conducted for the Phase I that all of the structures were on the property when he purchased the site in 1971 and that the two-story dwelling was reportedly built in However, observations of the exterior and interior of the two-story building indicate that the building has been altered and that it does not appear to have any outstanding architectural features. Based on the research conducted for the, there is no other evidence to indicate that any of these structures would be considered significant historic resources. Source: 6 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? M a s t e r P l a n E I R The found that the general area of the campus has a moderate sensitivity to prehistoric resources. Unknown archaeological deposits could be discovered during construction activities and parts of the campus could contain historic archaeological features and artifacts associated with the early history of CCSF or earlier structures on the site. Depending on the nature of the resource, disturbance of unknown deposits could be a significant impact. Mitigation measures to avoid any potentially significant adverse effects from Master Plan development on buried or submerged cultural resources include (1) Archaeological Testing Program, (2) Archaeological Monitoring Program, (3) Archaeological Data Recovery Program, (4) Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects, and (5) Final Archaeological Resources Report. Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level. The project would involve minor land disturbance on a small parcel immediately adjacent to the campus. City College of San Francisco 13 October 2004

14 Proposed excavation includes only trenching to install electrical lines and soil removal or capping to address site contamination. Although the amount of disturbance would be small, there would still be a possibility of finding buried resources, given that the general area of the campus has a moderate sensitivity to prehistoric resources. The project therefore incorporates the same measures to avoid any potentially significant adverse effects on buried or submerged cultural resources adopted as part of the Master Plan. (These measures are listed at the end of the document.) Incorporation of these measures will ensure that the potential impact to archaeological resources is less than significant. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As explained in the, a records search indicated that no paleontological finds have been made in the geologic units that underlie the campus (within or near the project area); therefore, impacts to unique paleontological resources were not analyzed further. As noted in the Master Plan, no paleontological finds have been made in the geologic units underlying the campus. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, given the proximity of the project site to the campus, there are no unique paleontological resources underlying the project site. Source: 6 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? See response to 5b. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS- Would the project: Potentially Significant a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. LTS with Mitigation LTS No Impact As stated in the, no active faults cross the Main Campus and the campus is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone; therefore, the potential for ground rupture is low. There are no active faults across the project site and it is not within a fault zone. Source: 7 City College of San Francisco 14 October 2004

15 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? According to the, given compliance with all State requirements, including adherence to the California Building Code, Master Plan buildout would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking. According to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the project site is underlain by the Colma Formation (similar to parts of the CCSF Main Campus). Similar to the campus, the project site would be exposed to ground shaking during an earthquake. Conversion of the site to a parking lot or storage would not involve the presence of structures or extended use of the site by people. If one or more portable buildings were installed on the site, the buildings would be existing portables that would be moved to the site from nearby locations on the CCSF campus. Thus, any exposure to ground shaking would be transferred from the current location(s) of the portable buildings to the proposed project site, and the hazard would be similar. In addition, the portables would be used on the site for a short time. The proposed project would facilitate the replacement of existing buildings (including the portables) with new structures that would be constructed in conformance with the latest seismic requirements. Therefore, as with development of the Master Plan, conversion of the project site would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The noted that geotechnical studies indicate the potential for liquefaction at the site of the Community Health & Wellness Center and in the one remaining area of the embankments of the reservoir the external embankment on the west side. In the absence of specific design information for development on the reservoir and without conclusive information regarding hazard potential, the potential effects involving liquefaction are considered to be significant. The indicates that CCSF will conduct a sitespecific geotechnical investigation of each building project prior to construction and will implement all feasible measures identified in the geotechnical investigation to avoid or minimize liquefaction potential. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the potential impacts resulting from liquefaction to a lessthan-significant level. A Phase II environmental site assessment conducted for the site included soil borings to examine the subsurface soil conditions on the site. According to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the project site is underlain by the Colma Formation (similar to parts of the CCSF Main Campus). Soil borings conducted for the Phase II found loose fine silty sand, medium-dense fine sand, and medium dense clayey sand, consistent with the Colma Formation characteristics. (Test pits found occasional glass shards and brick fragments, but these items were within the first 6 inches to 1 foot below the surface.) Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings. For those reasons, the potential for liquefaction at the site would be low. Source: 6 iv) Landslides? Geotechnical studies completed for the Main Campus indicate that the campus is not mapped within an area susceptible to seismically-induced landsliding. As noted in the, the non-engineered condition of the fill slopes south of the Lath House suggests that they may be susceptible to failure. Failure could also be induced by improper grading. For these reasons, Master Plan development could expose people or structures to substantial adverse hazards related to slope failure; the potential impacts are significant for the site as a City College of San Francisco 15 October 2004

16 whole. The indicates that CCSF will conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation of each building project prior to construction and will implement all feasible measures identified in the geotechnical investigation to avoid or minimize slope failure potential. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce potential slope failure impacts to a less- than-significant level. The project site is flat. Although there is a minor grade difference between the project site and West Road as well as a hill north of the site that is developed with houses, development of the project would require minimal grading and would not include disturbance of any slopes. In addition, any potential threat of landslides to people or structures would be minimized by the fact that any portable structure(s) that would be placed on the site would be temporary and that none of the other proposed uses of the site would involve occupancy by people. Therefore, the impact from landslides would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? According to the, during the construction phase of individual Main Campus projects, construction activities would disturb or remove existing vegetation, thereby increasing potential erosion from certain parts of the campus. Under current site conditions, the potential for ongoing erosion is high. The potential impacts related to erosion, including construction erosion and ongoing erosion, would be significant. Mitigation identified includes development of an erosion control plan and the dust control measures identified to control construction emissions. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce the identified significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project includes minimal grading to prepare the site for laying gravel, earthwork only to install electrical lines and remediate site soil contamination, and removal of a strip of vegetation along the site s western boundary. Similar to what was described in the, construction activities on the site could expose soils to erosion and loss of topsoil. However, the proposed project incorporates measures adopted as part of the Master Plan (as described above and included in the end of this document) that would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil are less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? As noted in the Master Plan, the geotechnical investigation of the campus found no issues related to unstable geologic units or soils beyond those impacts discussed in other sections. For a discussion of landslide impacts, see response to 6aiv. For a discussion of liquefaction impacts, see response to 6aiii. The did not identify any other impacts related to unstable soils. Investigation of the site reveals that the soil site conditions are similar to those within the Main Campus. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in additional or a substantial increase in significant impacts. Source: 7 City College of San Francisco 16 October 2004

17 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? According to the, given the presence of expansive soils (including clayey soil within colluvium, Colma Formation sediments and fill at the Main Campus) and bedrock that may be locally expansive, the potential impact from expansive soils would be significant. The project site conditions are similar to those within the Main Campus; therefore, expansive soils could be present. However, the project would not create substantial risks to life or property. People using the site for parking and landscaping storage would occupy the site for short periods of time. Portable buildings installed on the site would be transferred from their existing locations on the campus and the use of the buildings would be similar to their current use on the campus. For those reasons, the potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Source: 8 e) 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? As discussed in the, the Main Campus is already connected to the City wastewater system and additional development on the campus would connect to the system; therefore, there would be no impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The proposed project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Potentially Significant LTS with Mitigation LTS No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would result in the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials similar to what is already in existence and which are already governed by established programs and procedures. Therefore, the Master Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project would involve temporary use of the site for parking, storage of landscaping materials, and one or more portable classrooms. These uses typically do not involve hazardous materials. Any type of transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with the proposed project would be of a similar nature to those already used during activities that currently exist on the campus and would be City College of San Francisco 17 October 2004

18 governed by the same established programs and procedures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The Master Plan concluded that given the nature, volume, and use of the materials associated with development of the Master Plan, the project would not raise significant issues with respect to upset conditions or the handling of acutely hazardous materials. The project would involve temporary use of the site for parking, storage of landscaping materials, and one or more portable classrooms. These uses typically do not involve hazardous materials. If there were hazardous materials involved, the nature, volume, and use of the materials associated with the proposed project would be of a similar nature to those already used during activities that currently exist on the campus. The proposed project would not raise significant issues with respect to upset conditions or the handling of acutely hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? See response to 7b. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? M a s t e r P l a n E I R According to the Master Plan, implementation of the proposed Master Plan could result in the exposure of construction workers, students, faculty, staff, and visitors to sources of contamination, including exposure to hazardous building materials (such as asbestos, lead-based paint) and to soil and groundwater contamination. Implementation of mitigation measures aimed at identifying, remediating, and removing hazardous materials would reduce impacts associated with soil and groundwater contamination to a less-thansignificant level. P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section However, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment revealed evidence of elevated levels of the heavy metals arsenic, lead, and chromium as well as the pesticide Dieldrin in the soil inside the greenhouses. No groundwater was encountered during the Phase II investigation. CCSF conducted additional testing to determine the appropriate course of action. In order to protect construction workers who could encounter contaminated soils, (primarily during excavation of the trench for the electrical line) and future users of the site including students, faculty, staff, and visitors from potential exposure to soil contamination, the proposed project includes remediation in accordance with the standards, regulations, and determinations of local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Specifically, CCSF would either remove the upper one foot of topsoil and dispose of it in an appropriate Class I or Class II City College of San Francisco 18 October 2004

19 landfill, or would cap the contaminated soil on site with a clean soil barrier. These proposed actions, which reflect the adopted Measures Hazards-2a and 2b from the, are incorporated into the proposed project and included at the back of this document. Incorporation of these measures would ensure that impacts from soil contamination and hazardous materials are less than significant. Source: 8, 9, 10 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such 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? The Master Plan noted that the Main Campus is not within an airport land use plan area or near a private airstrip. The project site is not within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of an airport or airstrip. f) 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? See response to 7e. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? According to the, as part of implementation of the Master Plan, CCSF would update its adopted emergency response and evacuation plans to reflect the proposed uses. This project would be part of Master Plan implementation and CCSF s update of its emergency response and evacuation plans would include the proposed project. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? M a s t e r P l a n E I R As noted in the, the Main Campus is in a completely urbanized area and is not on or adjacent to wildlands. The project site is in a completely urbanized area and is not on or adjacent to wildlands. Therefore, there are no hazards related to wildland fires. City College of San Francisco 19 October 2004

20 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: Potentially Significant LTS with Mitigation LTS No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? According to the Master Plan, the uses anticipated within the campus would be similar to existing uses and would not create effluent discharges from a point source. CCSF would comply with all state and federal regulations related to non-point discharges. Therefore, the project would not violate any waste discharge requirements. The proposed project would involve temporary use of the site for parking, storage of landscaping materials, and one or more portable classrooms. These uses would be similar to existing uses on the campus and would not create effluent discharges from a point source. As with implementation of the Master Plan, the project would comply with all state and federal regulations related to non-point discharges and would not violate any waste discharge requirements. The proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to water quality. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of 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)? According to the, the Main Campus is already developed, and the proposed land uses would be similar to existing uses. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to groundwater recharge. Water is supplied to the campus by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) through the City distribution system. Therefore, campus water consumption would have no effect on local groundwater supplies. Development of the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge as the site is already completely developed with impervious surfaces (e.g., greenhouse roof). In addition, the proposed project would not require any water consumption and therefore would not affect local groundwater supplies. The proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to groundwater. c) 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? As noted in the, the Main Campus is developed, and runoff from the campus drains to the City combined wastewater/storm drainage system; there are no natural surface watercourses on campus. The development built as part of the Master Plan would result in similar uses to those now present and most proposed uses would be constructed in areas that are already paved or developed with structures. Therefore, City College of San Francisco 20 October 2004