Enclsoure_F-_CEQA_checklist.pdf

County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST

(To Be Completed by Planning Department)

1. Project Title:

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

4. Project Location:

5. Assessor’s Parcel No.:

6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

7. General Plan Designation:

8. Zoning:

9. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.)

10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:

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.

Enclosure 5. CEQA Checklist

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Population/Housing

Agricultural and Forestry Resources

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Public Services

Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation

Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic

Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems

Geology/Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appro-priate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in 5. below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation

Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Have a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista, views from existing residential areas, public lands, water bodies, or roads?

Discussion:

b. Significantly damage or destroy scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. Significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, including significant change in topography or ground surface relief features, and/or development on a ridgeline?

d. Create a new source of significant light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

e. Be adjacent to a designated Scenic

Highway or within a State or County Scenic Corridor?

Discussion:

f. If within a Design Review District, conflict with applicable General Plan or Zoning Ordinance provisions?

g. Visually intrude into an area having natural scenic qualities?

2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. For lands outside the Coastal Zone, 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?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, an existing Open Space Easement, or a Williamson Act contract?

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 or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion:

d. For lands within the Coastal Zone, convert or divide lands identified as Class I or Class II Agriculture Soils and Class III Soils rated good or very good for artichokes or Brussels sprouts?

e. Result in damage to soil capability or loss of agricultural land?

f. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Re-sources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

Note to reader: This question seeks to address the economic impact of converting forest land to a non-timber harvesting use.

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

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations, as defined by the

BAAQMD?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a significant number of people?

f. Generate pollutants (hydrocarbon, thermal odor, dust or smoke particulates, radiation, etc.) that will violate existing standards of air quality on-site or in the surrounding area?

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Have a significant 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?

b. Have a significant 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?

Discussion:

c. Have a significant 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?

d. Interfere significantly with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordi-nances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (including the County Heritage and Significant Tree Ordinances)?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

g. Be located inside or within 200 feet of a marine or wildlife reserve?

h. Result in loss of oak woodlands or other non-timber woodlands?

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Cause a significant adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

Discussion:

b. Cause a significant adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Discussion:

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Discussion:

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Expose people or structures to potential significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the following, or create a situation that results in:

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 significant evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 and the County Geotechnical Hazards Synthesis Map.

Discussion:

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

Discussion:

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and differential settling?

iv. Landslides?

Discussion:

v. Coastal cliff/bluff instability or erosion?

Note: This question is looking at instability under current conditions. Future, potential instability is looked at in Section 7 (Climate Change).

b. Result in significant soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

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, severe erosion, liquefaction or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as noted in the 2010 California Building Code, creating significant risks to life or property?

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?

7. CLIMATE CHANGE. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (including methane), either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan (including a local climate action plan), policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

c. Result in the loss of forest land or conver-sion of forest land to non-forest use, such that it would release significant amounts of GHG emissions, or significantly reduce GHG sequestering?

d. Expose new or existing structures and/or infrastructure (e.g. – leach fields) to accelerated coastal cliff/bluff erosion due to rising sea levels?

e. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving sea level rise?

f. Place structures within an anticipated 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a

Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

Discussion:

g. Place within an anticipated 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (e.g. – pesticides, herbicides, other toxic substances, or radioactive material)?

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?

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

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section

65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

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

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

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h. Expose people or structures to a signifi-cant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

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

j. Place within an existing 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

k. Expose people or structures to a signifi-cant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

l. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash))?

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

c. Significantly 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 that would result in significant erosion or siltation on-or off-site?

d. Significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or significantly increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Discussion:

e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide significant additional sources of polluted runoff?

f. Significantly degrade surface or groundwater water quality?

g. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff?

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Physically divide an established community?

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

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?

d. Result in the congregating of more than 50 people on a regular basis?

e. Result in the introduction of activities not currently found within the community?

f. Serve to encourage off-site development of presently undeveloped areas or increase development intensity of already developed areas (examples include the introduction of new or expanded public utilities, new industry, commercial facilities or recreation activities)?

g. Create a significant new demand for housing?

11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State?

Discussion:

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

12. NOISE. Would the project result in:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. 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?

Discussion:

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?

Discussion:

c. A significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Discussion:

d. A significant temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Discussion:

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

Discussion:

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

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Induce significant 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)?

Discussion:

b. Displace existing housing (including low-or moderate-income housing), in an area that is substantially deficient in housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in significant adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Fire protection?

b. Police protection?

c. Schools?

d. Parks?

e. Other public facilities or utilities (e.g. – hospitals, or electrical/natural gas supply systems)?

15. RECREATION. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that significant physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in significant safety risks?

d. Significantly increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

Discussion:

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

g. Cause noticeable increase in pedestrian traffic or a change in pedestrian patterns?

h. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Exceed wastewater treatment require-ments of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the con-struction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ-mental effects?

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e. Result in a determination by the waste-water 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?

f. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g. Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

h. Be sited, oriented, and/or designed to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy; incorporate water conservation and solid waste reduction measures; and incorporate solar or other alternative energy sources?

i. Generate any demands that will cause a public facility or utility to reach or exceed its capacity?

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

Significant

Impacts

Significant Unless

Mitigated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, significantly reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES. Check what agency has permit authority or other approval for the project.

AGENCY YES NO TYPE OF APPROVAL

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE)

State Water Resources Control Board

Regional Water Quality Control Board

State Department of Public Health

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)

CalTrans

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Coastal Commission

City

Sewer/Water District:

Other:

MITIGATION MEASURES

Yes No

Mitigation measures have been proposed in project application.

Other mitigation measures are needed.

The following measures are included in the project plans or proposals pursuant to Section 15070(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines:

DETERMINATION (to be completed by the Lead Agency).

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared by the Planning Department.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environ-ment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures in the discussion have been included as part of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

(Signature)

Date (Title)

MJS:fc – MJSW0753_WFU.DOCX

Utilities/Service Systems